Back
MAHARASHTRA STA1E CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Honble Mr, Justice G.G. Loney, President; Mrs. Ellen Dharkar, Member
M/s. MADHAVI BROTHERS—Complainant
versus
JAYADEV ELECTRO MECH COMPANY P. LTD.—Opp. Party
Complaint No. 243 of 1991—Decided on 13.10.1992
A seller is liable for the sale of defective goods and is required to maintain the standard of the goods as represented. The seller's failure to rectify defects despite repeated complaints constitutes negligence, and the seller is liable to compensate the buyer for any losses suffered due to the defective goods.
Headnote:
DEFECTIVE ELEVATOR - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 2(1)(u), 14(1)(d) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 16(1) - INTERPRETATION OF REPRESENTATIONS, NEGLIGENCE, LIABILITY, AND COMPENSATION FOR DEFECTIVE ELEVATOR.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a construction firm, purchased an elevator from the opposite party for a building with ground plus seven floors. Despite repeated complaints about the elevator's malfunctioning, the opposite party failed to rectify the defects. The complainant sought a refund, compensation for losses, and installation of a new elevator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the elevator was defective and that the opposite party was negligent in failing to rectify the defects despite repeated complaints. The court also found that the complainant suffered losses due to the defective elevator, including the salary paid to a liftman and compensation for the inconvenience caused to the occupants of the building.
Issues: 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 negligence of the opposite party?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party was liable for the defective elevator under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court interpreted the representations made by the opposite party about the quality of the elevator as imperfect and found that the opposite party failed to maintain the standard of the elevator as required by law. The court also found that the opposite party was negligent in failing to rectify the defects despite repeated complaints.
Final Decision: The court ordered the opposite party to replace the defective elevator with a new one free from defects within 30 days and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs. 28,500/- towards the salary of the liftman. The court further directed that the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. if not paid within 30 days.
Mr. 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 20.5.87 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 letterdated 29.10.88, the Opposite Party Jaydeo Electro Mech Company confirmed their earlier order dated 20.5.87 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 4.11.88 paid Rs.15,550/- as advance and subsequently Rs.54,000/- on 4.5.89, Rs.20,000/- on 26.7.69, Rs. 18,700/- on 8.7.89, Rs.20,000/-on 13.10.89 and Rs. 11,000/- on 9.11.89 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. 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 14.7.90, 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 25.7.90 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 14.8.90, 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. 4.The opposite party filed its written version dated 17.2.92 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. 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 elevatordue to the negligence of the opposite party?
