Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 28 (UTT)

H. C. L. Ltd. v. Balbir Singh

2003-03-13

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the H.C.L. Company against the order dated 27-01-2000 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar. 2. The complainant purchased a Photocopier Machine from the respondent No.1, H.C.L. Company by taking' a loan from the Nigam, respondent No.2 & 3. There was a warranty of 90 days but the machine was defective from the very beginning. The' complainant put several letters but the machine was not repaired. He had spent Rs. 4250/- in the repairs of the machine. 'Since, the machine was neither changes, nor repaired, nor any action on the notices were taken, the complainant filed the complaint. 3. All the opposite parties filed a written statement before the Forum but became absent. Therefore, the District Forum heard the complaint, ex-party. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to replace the machine, to pay the cost of repairs and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- along with a cost of Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed. . 4. Before the lower court, the appellant did not take any part in the proceedings except filing the W.S. and affidavit but became absent. In the' absence, the written statement of the contest shall be deemed to have been left off. 5. However, this appeal has been filed with the allegations that there is no jurisdiction of the Hardwar Forum. The petition is filed after the expiry of the warranty period. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. On facts, the judgment of the learned Forum is perfectly sound and we do not want to go into the details of that judgment As regards, the plea of jurisdiction, since the machine was supplied at Hardwar, it was to function at Hardwar, it was detected defective in Hardwar, therefore, cause of action arose at Hardwar also and therefore; the complaint was rightly filed in the District Forum. 7. As regards the period of limitation, machine was purchased on 11-11-95, the complaint was filed on 29-07-97 within two years from the date of purchase itself, there is no law that the complaint should be filed within the warranty period only. 7. As regards the period of limitation, machine was purchased on 11-11-95, the complaint was filed on 29-07-97 within two years from the date of purchase itself, there is no law that the complaint should be filed within the warranty period only. As regards the repair after the warranty period, when there was a manufacturing defect, when the machine was not properly working from the very beginning itself, the question of warranty will not arise. In the matters of manufacturing defect, it is to be cured as and when the defect is detected. The complainant has proved the expenses he has naturally been put to harrassment because of defective supply, of the machine. We are not concerned here with the general working of the appellant that all the machines prepared by him were not up to the standard and that he has been applied to be black listed. We are concerned only with the individual case and here in this individual case, we find that there has been deficiency in service by the appellant. It was argued that the machine supplied to the complainant is not under manufacture and the appellant is unable to supply that machine. If he is not manufacturing the said machine, it is true that he cannot replace it. However, he is directed to replace the old machine by a new one of similar make and equal price and if it is not possible then the second alternative given by the learned Forum shall be complied with. 8. The complaint was rightly allowed. This appeal has got not force and is to be dismissed. ORDER 9. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.