LAXMIKANT vs SATYENDRANATH C.TAVAKARI

SINCE these three appeals arise from the same order of District Forum, they are disposed off by this Common order. These three appeals arise from the order of District Forum, Panaji, dated 14.1.193 passed in complaint No. 65 of 1992.

A complaint was filed by Shri Satyendranath C. Tavakari before the District Forum alleging that washing machine purchase by him from OP No. 3, M/s. Laxmikant & Co., Mapusa was found to be defective. Washing machine was manufactured by Op. No. 1 M/s. Magic Wash Industries Pvt.Ltd., Mapusa-Goa. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he had purchased washing Machine on 2.12.1988 with one year warranty. According to the complainant, machine had a break down on 15.1.1989 i.e. within a month of its purchase and on 20.1.1989, value was required to be replaced. It is further alleged that the said machine again break down regularly in the months of March, April and June, 1989 and August, 1989 was repaired continuously. The complainant alleged that in July, 1990, there was major break-down in the machine and when complainant lodged a complaint with OP, no attention was paid to his grievance. The complainant further alleged that in December, 1990 when mechanic of OP No.1 checked the machine, he had to replace the belt and at that time, he remarked that alignment of the machinery did not appear to be correct. On these allegations, a complaint was filed claiming Rs. 22,338.68 towards compensation on various heads. District Forum held by its order dated 29.6.1992 that machine was defective and ordered payment of Rs. 10,475.00 to the complaint OPS filed appeals to thinks commission and this commission by an order dated 29.9.1992 passed in Appeal No. 46 of 1992 remanded back the complaint to the District Forum to examine whether the complaint was within the limitation of three years. District Forum by impugned order has held that the complaint was within the limitation and ordered the OPs to refund the price of washing machine to the complainant.

.Appeal No.21 of 1993 is filed by the dealer M/s. Laxmikant & Co., and Appeal No. 24 of 1993 is filed by the complainant claiming interest and enhancement of compensation and Appeal No. 31 of 1993 has been filed by M/s. Magic Wash Industries Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer.

.WE have heard the respective learned Counsels for the parties and also perused the relevant records. WE find that the washing machine was purchased on 2.12.1988. Numerous-defects were found during the warranty period of one year upto 2.12.1989. According to District Forum, Cause of action arose in December, 1990 within a period of three years from the date of purchase of machine when the alignment of the machinery was found to be defective, by the mechanic of O.P. The complainant alleged specifically in his complaint in para 3 that when the mechanic of OP inspected the washing machine on 10.12.1990, he remarked that the alignment of the machinery did not appears to be correct. Now, these specific allegations attributed to the mechanic OP although denied are not supported by the affidavit of mechanic who is admittedly in the employment of OP No.1. In addition to above, from the two admitted documents on record dated 29.1.1989 and 28.12.1990, it is clear that the said mechanic was required to attend the complainant''s grievance to remove the defect appearing in the washing machine. WE are thus satisfied from the material on record that cause of action arose in the month of December, 1990, and, therefore, the complaint is maintainable which is filed within three years from the date of cause of action. WE, therefore, agree with the finding of District Forum that the complaint was filed within a period of three years from the date of cause of action.

SHRI Salatri, learned Advocate for appellant, M/s. Magic Wash Industries Pvt. Ltd., pointed out to us three decisions of National Commission. First Appeal No. 70 of 1990 decided on 13.7.1990, second Appeal No. 18 of 1990 decided on 11.7.1990 and third Appeal No. 59 of 1990 dated 19.12.1990 decided by the National Commission. In all these appeals, cause of action arose in 1984,1982 and 1980 respectively and, therefore, the ratio of aforesaid decisions cannot be made applicable to the instant appeals taking into consideration the facts of the instant case. We are, therefore, of the view that District Forum was correct in holding that washing machine sold to the complainant was defective. It is found that M/s.. Laxmikant & Co. is the dealer and is not responsible for the defect in the manufacture of washing machine. Admittedly, machine has been manufactured by M/s. Magic Wash Industries Pvt. Ltd., and, therefore, amount of Rs. 10,475.00 is required to be paid by M/s. Magic Wash Industries Pvt. Ltd., alone to the complainant for manufacturing defective machine. Appeal No.21 of 1993 is partly allowed. Appeal No. 24 of 1993 and Appeal No. 31 of 1993 are dismissed. Appeal 21/1993 Partly allowed. Appeal 24 & 31 of 1993 Dismissed. ________________