MODERN RICE MILL MACHINERY COMPANY vs Maheswar Sahu

THIS is an appeal by the supplier of a Rice Huller Unit to the complainant which was purchased by him on a loan from the National Small Industries Corporation. On 21.11.1994 the same was installed in the rented premises of the complainant but without a polisher. On demand by the complainant polisher was installed on 8.5.1995. Complainant claims that in good faith on 9.5.1995 he no doubt gave a certificate regarding the due performance of the polisher but only after a month of this installation the metal polisher went out of order and the Mill remained defunct. The complainant requested the appellant to replace the polisher. By their letter dated 1.3.1997 the appellant-Company intimated that the polisher should be brought to them. Ultimately replacement was done on 19.7.1997. The complainant claims that he sustained loss of about Rs. 3,00,000/- for such deficiency of service.

SEVERAL grounds in defence by the Supplier was taken such as absence of jurisdiction of the Forum, the complainant being not a consumer, the rice huller was installed for commercial purpose and lastly the certificate dated 9.5.1995 given by the complainant about the satisfactory performance of the polisher, indicated that there was no defect in the polisher. The District Forum held and that too rightly that the Forum has jurisdiction because the rice huller was installed in the village of the complainant that comes within the jurisdiction of the Kendrapara District Forum. It also rightly held that the complainant is a consumer having entered into a sales transaction and supplied the machineries. So far as the certificate given by the complainant is concerned, it cannot be said that having signed such letter he could not complain about the defect in the machine. Infact the certificate was given on 9.5.1995, the next day after the installation. Therefore, this is no way helpful for the appellant to take a defence to counter the liability alleged.

As regards the merit of the case the District Forum held there was delay of 6 months for which the complainant who had purchased the rice huller on loan had to bear interest unnecessarily. The District Forum relied on the letter dated 29.4.1994 of the appellant which read that their mechanic along with helper were leaving Calcutta to fix the polisher which was originally supplied and found defective, and other minor defects would be rectified. The District Forum has given in para-9 of the judgment elaborately the reason for delay and the inconvenience faced by the complainant for taking the polisher to the appellant and personally getting it back. The reason given for arriving at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service is acceptable and confirmed. We confirm the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant for delay in supplying the polisher and also delay in repairing the same and sending it back to the complainant. So far compensation part is concerned, the District Forum has awarded Rs. 73,000/- compensation which includes Rs. 65,000/- towards loss sustained because in the absence of the polisher the complainant could produce only coarse rice. We do not accept the reasoning of the District Forum. There is no proof as to what type of rice was produced in the absence of the polisher. That apart the letter of the complainant dated 2.7.1997 addressed to the appellant that the rice polisher was sent by the appellant had not been fitted till then. This does not indicate any complaint about the bad quality of rice. It is not the case of the complainant that his rice huller was not functioning till 1997. The Forum found that installation was delayed by some months. Therefore, arriving at a specific figure of Rs. 65,000/- without giving the exact period of delay is not acceptable to us. Therefore, awarding of compensation of Rs. 65,000/- on that head is not proper, to us being not based on any material on record. However, the complainant is entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- which would includes compensation for loss of business towards general damages like mental agony, litigation costs etc., total of which comes to Rs. 8,000/-. Besides we award cost of Rs. 2,000/-, thus totally Rs. 35,000/-. The appeal is allowed in part. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.