AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Thomas P. Joseph
The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 364 of 2007 of the Munsiff''s Court, Kannur are aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for recovery of damages as confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S. No. 33 of 2009. The appellants purchased a deep freezer from the first respondent on 26.06.2004 for Rs. 20,000/-. The first respondent is the dealer while the 3rd respondent is its manufacturer. The second respondent is the branch office of the 3rd respondent. According to the appellants, the first respondent had assured that the deep freezer is of good quality but it developed trouble due to manufacturing defect. The freezer was checked by M/s. Janatha Refrigerator Service Cool Centre. Then it was learned that the cooling coil was of inferior quality. On 11.08.2006 the appellants informed the respondents 1 and 3 about it. But there was no reply. On 28.08.2006 notice was issued through a lawyer demanding the replacement of the deep freezer and to compensate the loss caused to the appellants. The second respondent replied to it agreeing to replace body of the freezer. Accordingly, the freezer was entrusted to the second respondent. But it was not returned. Hence the suit.
The first respondent contended that warranty period of the deep freezer expired by 25.06.2005 and that trouble was started only after it was repaired by M/s. Janatha Refrigerator Service Cool Centre. After it was brought to the second respondent, its body was replaced and the appellants were asked to take delivery of the same. The first respondent sent reply dated 19.03.2007. The respondents 2 and 3 contended that there was no defect for the freezer and that body of the freezer on complaint by the appellant was replaced by the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that the appellants had used the freezer for more than 2 years in a busy bar attached hotel. The courts below found that there is no evidence of manufacturing defect for the freezer and that complaint concerned body of the freezer which was replaced by the respondents 1 and 3. The courts below also found that after replacement, the first respondent had requested the appellants to take delivery of the freezer but they did not do so.
It is contended by the learned counsel that the understanding between the appellants and the respondents 1 and 3 was that after replacement of body of the freezer it would be delivered at the hotel of the appellant but that was not done. It is contended that there was manufacturing defect for the freezer. According to the learned counsel, evidence of the Managing Partner of the first respondent as DW. 1 would only show that the first respondent is not liable for any loss caused to the appellant.
As regards the alleged manufacturing defect the courts below found there was no convincing evidence. The complaint was only regarding body of the freezer. That was replaced by the first respondent. It is the further contention of the respondent that trouble complained by the appellants started only after it was checked by M/s. Janatha Refrigerator Service Cool Centre. I must also notice that as contended by the first respondent, warranty period expired on 25.06.2005 and even the complaint from the appellants to the respondents came only on 11.08.2006. So far as redelivery of the repaired freezer is concerned, though it is contended that the understanding was that the respondents 1 and 3 would deliver it at the hotel of the appellants, there was no reliable evidence. On the other hand, it is in evidence that the first respondent had requested the appellant by letter to take delivery of the same. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellants could not stand as rightly found by the courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.
The second appeal is dismissed.