THE SELLER IS LIABLE TO REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE GOODS AND PAY COMPENSATION TO THE CONSUMER FOR THE LOSS SUFFERED DUE TO THE DEFECTIVE GOODS.

JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. Loney, President :—In this complaint, the allegations are made against the opposite party for the sale of defective elevator. Necessary facts are that the complainant is a firm engaged in the construction business. The complainant constructed the building known as "Shivshakti Apartments" at Thane having ground plus seven floors. It was incumbant on the complainant under the relevant rules to fix the elevator in the said building. The opposite party sent a written offer on 20-5-1987 for the supply, erection and maintenance of elevator. In the said offer clear representation was made by the opposite party that the elevator components will conform to the Indian Standard specifications in elevators and the Bombay Lift Rule, 1958. By another letter dated 29-10-1988, the opposite party Jaydeo Electro Mech Company confirmed their earlier order dated 20-5-1987 and quoted the price of the elevator at Rs. 1,55,000/-. The total cost with sales tax and octroi was Rs. 1,64,130.60. The complainant accepted the offer and on 4-11-1988 paid Rs. 15,550/- as advance and subsequently Rs. 54,000/- on 4-5-1989, Rs. 20,000 on 26-7-1969, Rs. 18,700/- on 8-7-1989, Rs. 20,000/- on 13-10-1989, and Rs. 11,000/- on 9-11-1989 to the opposite party. The elevator was installed in April, 1990. The opposite party also informed the complainant that the maintenance service commenced from the date of inspection and shall continue for a period of 24 months thereafter.

2. The complainant alleged that the said elevator was not functioning properly from the date of installation. The elevator could not work even over an hour at a stretch. The complainant made many oral complaints but they were not attended to. Finally, on 14-7-1990, the complainant informed the opposite party the hardship caused to him as well as to other occupants of the said building. It was replied by the opposite party on 25-7-1990 for the first time raising contention that the voltage available at the site was not enough for the working of the said elevator. The complainant, therefore, approached the Maharashtra State Electricity Board for the inspection of the installation and to certify the voltage. The M.S.E.B. officials certified that the voltage was enough to operate the elevator having the same specifications as that of the said elevator.

3. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party converted the said elevator to a single speed elevator in the hope of its smooth functioning but even then, there was no improvement. According to the complainant on 14-8-1990, the opposite party was informed that the voltage in the building was enough for the smooth functioning of the said elevator. The complainant further alleged that the other occupants of the building were agitating over the non-functioning of the elevator. Ultimately, the complainant filed this complaint alleging that the elevator sold to him was defective and, therefore, the complainant claimed the refund of the price of the elevator with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

4. The opposite party filed its written version dated 17-2-1992, denying the claim of the complainant. The opposite party admitted the sale of the lift. According to the opposite party the non-functioning of the elevator was due to insufficient voltage. The opposite party denied the inconvenience and damage sustained by the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant had not paid Rs. 9,880.60 towards the purchase price. In short, the opposite party disputed the claim of the complainant about the supply of defective elevator.

5. We have heard Shri Chitnis, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Almaida, Advocate for the opposite party. We have gone through the relevant record of this complaint. The following points arise for our consideration :—

1) Whether the elevator sold to the complainant was defective?

2) Whether the complainant was put to a loss on account of the supply of defective elevator due to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document