K.K. AGENCY vs P.P. SHUKLA

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arises from the order dated 7.10.2002 in Complaint No. 194/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant to replace the Tulu pump purchased by the complainant/respondent from the appellant and in the alternative to pay him a sum of Rs. 2,140/- with interest @ 12% per annum besides the cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTEDLY the complainant/respondent purchased a Tulu pump of 0.5 HP Silver Self Priming-Delux model for Rs. 2,140/- on 31.12.1999. Warranty for the said pump was for a year. The case of the complainant/respondent stated in brief was that the said pump went out of order within the period of warranty. The complainant requested the appellant to rectify the defect. However, though the appellant detained the pump for some time with him but did not rectify the defect. Hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/appellant. In substance the averment of the appellant was that the pump did not develop any defect within the period of warranty. It was further averred that the pump was brought for rectification of defects therein after the period of warranty. It was further averred that there was no manufacturing defect in the pump and that the defect developed on account of misuse by the complainant/respondent.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that the Tulu pump having a warranty for a period of one year developed defects within two months of its purchase and as the appellant did not rectify the defect thereof committed deficiency in service. THE appellant was, therefore, directed to replace the Tulu pump and in the alternative to refund its price to the complainant/respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that the complainant/respondent has not examined any technical person or expert to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the pump. It was further submitted that the Tulu pump did not develop defects within the period of warranty and defect, if any, cropped up due to its misuse. The learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the Tulu pump developed trouble within the period of warranty and the defect was not attended to by the appellant/dealer, though it retained the pump for some time for rectification of defect.

IT is clear from the affidavit of the complainant/respondent that the Tulu pump was purchased by him for Rs. 2,140/- and a warranty for a year was given by appellant/dealer. IT also appears from the averment and the affidavit of the appellant that said Tulu pump developed defects within two months after the purchase thereof. There is no dispute that the Tulu pump was given by the complainant/respondent, to the appellant for rectification of the defects. Though the appellant has in his written version controverted the averment of the complainant/respondent that the Tulu pump developed defects within two months of purchase, but did not produce any record to show that it was brought for rectification of defects, after the period of warranty. Had it been so, the appellant/dealer at the out set would not have accepted the Tulu pump for rectification of the defects. But the appellant did not appear to have done so. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tulu pump developed defects within two months of its purchase i.e., within the period of warranty as was averred by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that tulu pump developed defects on account of its misuse. It was further submitted that complainant/respondent should have produced expert opinion that there was manufacturing defect. However, it may be noticed that the appellant himself has stated in its written version that his mechanic discovered that the tulu pump had developed defects on account of its misuse. However, no opinion of the mechanic or other expert has been produced by the appellant/dealer. However, the very fact that the Tulu pump went out of order within 2 months of its purchase, shows inherent short-coming or defect therein. In the circumstances, we find that the Tulu pump developed defects in all probability because there was inherent shortcoming which may be due to manufacturing defect or substandard parts used therein. Accordingly the appellant/dealer was under an obligation to rectify the defect of the Tulu pump in due deference to the warranty. However it has failed to do so. Therefore, there was clearly deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The finding as above of the District Forum, therefore appears to be based on proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and is affirmed. The learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent during arguments tried to urge that the compensation as awarded by the District Forum is inadequate and it should be enhanced. However, it may be noticed that no appeal has been filed by the complainant/respondent to raise his grievance as above. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.

ACCORDINGLY we find no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appellant shall bear its own cost and shall pay that of the respondent which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.