CUTTACK GRAMODYOG MARKETING CO-OP. vs GYANENDRA CHANDRA ROUTRAY

PRESIDENT-The Secretary of Cuttack Gramodyog Marketing Co-operative Soceity Limited has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the order of the Cuttack District Forum directing him to examine the briquetting machine by a mechanical expert and remove the defects and if it is not possible replace it with a new defect free one, to bear the entire interest liability, to pay all outstanding electricity charges and further pay rupees 5,000 as compensation to the respondent No. 1.

THE respondent No. 1 filed the complaint alleging that the briquetting machine supplied by the appellant was not operating properly. His case is that he took a loan of rupees 35,000 from the State Bank of India, Salipur under the self employment educated unemployed youth scheme for setting up a coal briquetting unit. As per the arrangement, the appellant was to supply the machine and accessories for the unit which he did on receipt of rupees 26,528. Soon after the unit was commissioned on 1.12.1990, it was found that the machine was defective as it viberated. This fact was brought to the notice of the appellant, who did not take any steps to get the defect removed. As his request was not heeded, he filed the complaint. THE appellant in its written version admitted that the machine was vibrating, but he blamed the respondent No. 1 for it. In the written version filed by the appellant, it was stated that the respondent No. 1 was instructed to take the assistance of a mechanic of M/s. Regal Enterprises, Cuttack for installation of the machine. Instead of taking any assistance from the aforesaid firm, he installed the machine with the assistance of some other person of his choice. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible if the machine was vibrating.

It appears from the letters of the Regal Enterprises (Annexure A) that it deputed its mechanic, who after examining it noted that the machine was running at 30 rpm and the defect of slow running was rectified. Despite it, the vibration in the machine persisted. Therefore, in all fairness, the appellant should have requested M/s. Regal Enterprises to send its mechanic once more for inspection, which was not done. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

FOR the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appellant is hereby directed to comply the order of the District FORum, if not already done, within 31.8.2006. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above direction. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Mr. Subhash Kumar Mahtab, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.