Ramasamy vs K.K.PUMPS INDUSTRIES

THE complainant appeals.

HIS case was that he purchased a submersible motor pump from the opposite parties, that the motor failed several times and that it was replaced more than once, that on the last occasion the motor was not replaced. On account of this he has sustained loss in the form of cost of re- erection and also loss of crops. Accordingly, he prayed for a direction to replace the motor and to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000./-. The District Forum after enquiring fully into the matter directed the opposite party to replace the motor pump setand to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000 /- for repeated cost of erection and dismissed the rest of the complaint.

The complainant appealing against that order would contend that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the loss in the yield for want of proper irrigation as a result of defect in the motor cannot be gone into before the Forum and that the complainant can seek his remedy before the Civil Court. The learned Counsel for the complainant would argue that compensation could be awarded by the District Forum as per Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

IT is to be noted that the District Forum held that it cannot go into the question of compensation arising out of the defect of the motor, because as per Section 14(1)(d) compensation may be only awarded in case of negligence. In a case like the present one a customer may be entitled to two kinds of relief. The first one relates to the defect of the article in aspect of which he can get his remedy either by removal of defect or replacement of the article or return of the money. The second relief is compensation. For getting compensation the customer should allege and prove negligence on the part of the opposite party. In this case the complainant has not clearly made any allegation of negligence by the opposite parties. For instance he has not alleged that he has intimated the failure of the motor on a particular date, that he asked the opposite parties to set it right or to replace it, that the opposite parties have not acted with diligence and that on account of the delay by the opposite parties in meeting his requirements he sustained damages. In the complaint he attributes damages to the defect in the machine itself. As per the Act no compensation can be given on account of the defect in the machine unless in addition to the defect in the machine any act of negligence is imputed and proved as against the opposite parties. Therefore we do not find any error in the District Forum order not granting compensation in this case. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.