HARYANA ENGINEERING TOOLS CO. OF HISAR vs YASH PAL SINGH OF HISAR

M/s. Haryana Engineering Tools Co. appeals against the order of the District Forum Hisar allowing the respondent''s complaint and granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for defective goods supplied.

THE respondent who is admittedly a farmer having agricultural land in village Majra, Tehsil Hansi had on 8th of April,1992 purchased belting (4 inch X42 feet) of 5 layers at the rate of Rs. 15/- per foot costing Rs. 630/- from the appellant. According to the complainant the appellants fully assured and gave a guarantee of one year, therefore, and even issued a small document to that effect. A photostat copy thereof was attached to the complaint. THE primal grievance was that on the 24th of April, 1992 the said belt was fired to the thresher and the process of threshing wheat was started, but shortly thereafter the belt had broken. THE complainant then got the same repaired and remounted the belting on to the pully and the thresher, but on the following day it again broke and within five to six days it cracked and split into five pieces rendering it wholly unserviceable. THE respondent thereafter took the pieces of the belt to the appellants and protested about the defective goods and sought replacement. However, he was unable to get any recompense and his case was that the threshing process of the wheat for which he had engaged labour etc. and made the provisions was delayed and financial loss to the tune of Rs. 19,100/- was incurred which was sought as compensation. On notice being issued the appellants candidly admitted the purchase and the guarantee, but took up the somewhat curious plea that the same was subject to some instructions and the belt was to be used by some skilled person. It was reiterated that the belt could not have been damaged, if it had been used in a proper way and grievance was made that the complainant had repaired and got stitched the belt for re-use again. It was admitted that the complainant had come to the shop of the appellant, but it was pleaded that instead he had admitted his fault and gone away, pacified. All loss and damages to him were denied and the complaint was alleged to be false and baseless.

The complainant-respondent reiterated his stand by way of replication and in support of his case adduced his own affidavit. Surprisingly the same was not at all challenged by way of cross-examination, even though the appellants were fully represented by their Counsel. The appellants did not choose to lead even a tittle of evidence worth the name in rebuttal.

THE District Forum on the basis of the material before it took the view that the thresher belts are used by common persons engaged in agricultural occupation and hardly any special skill is needed to operate the same. It also accepted the respondent''s case about his having engaged labour etc. for completing the process of thrashing and consequently granted relief in the terms noticed at the very out-set. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss to assail the order under appeal. The prime argument pressed was that the belting should have been used by a skilled or a qualified person and the respondent not being so, the guarantee given was not attracted.

WE are unable to find any merit in the aforesaid submission. Nothing could be brought to our notice which spelt out any special condition that the use of the belting could only be done by a specially skilled or qualified person. Even when pressed, the learned Counsel was unable to specify as to what kind of qualifications were necessary or mandatory for operating something so simple as a thresher belt which is now a thing of absolutely common use in the harvesting operations in the rural area during the wheat season. The District Forum was right in its observation that it was common knowledge that such equipment is used by common persons engaged in agriculture occupation and labour and hardly any skilled person is needed to operate a belt on a thresher. Mr. Sharma had then contended that the respondent was in error in repairing the belt and attempting to re-use it when it broke down in the first instance. A grievance was made that by doing so, the terms of the guarantee has been violated. The submission has only to be noticed and rejected. Merely because the complainant did not at once rush to the appellants on the first break down cannot be taken as a factor against him. Indeed this action on his part was one of due care and he nevertheless attempted to use the belt by repairing it and resorted to the appellants only when the same was found to be utterly unusable and defective.

ALMOST as an argument of desperation, it was then contended that the provisions of Section 13-C had been violated and, therefore, the matter should be remanded back for trial.

WE are unable to see any merit in the aforesaid submission either. Learned Counsel could not show how a thresher belt is one which is capable of chemical analysis in an appropriate laboratory. It could not be indicated as to what kind of chemical test it can be put to or how the defect therein could not be determined, otherwise, then by such a procedure. The last submission of the appellant must, therefore, also fail. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. We however, refrain from burdening the appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.