Delhi High Court
E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. vs Baby Benjamin Thushara on 23 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(23)DRJ394
JUDGMENT B.S. Yadav, J.
(1) This is an appeal against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram, by which they awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 76,500.00 to the present Respondent. Mrs. Baby Benjamin Thushara, who was the complainant before them.
(2) The facts are that the present respondent filed a complaint before the said State Commission alleging that on 24th April, 1989, when she sat on the European style closet, installed in her house and which was manufactured by the present appellant, M/s E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., it gave way and crumbled into numerous pieces having razor sharp edges. The pieces penetrated into the flesh all along her buttocks and around anal and vaginal canal resulting in multiple injuries. Injuries bled profusely and caused acute pain. She was admitted in the Cosmopolitan Hospital, Trivandrum, where she had undergone protracted surgical treatment to remove the fragments of the closet which had got stuck inside her flesh. She was in-patient in the hospital for 17 days. When discharged from there, she was instructed to take absolute bed rest which she was still continuing. On account of the impact on the bottom of the closet, her vertebral column got seriously affected disabling her movements and even capacity to answer calls of nature without the aid of an attendant. Her disability has reached beyond the stage of recovery and owing to the disability thus occasioned, she has become incapable of looking after her ailing husband, her unmarried daughters and to take care of her income fetching enterprises namely poultry farming, maintaining of nursery and embroidery making. These enterprises used To fetch her a monthly income of Rs. 2,000.00 p.m. The injuries sustained by her are incurable and have caused her permanent disability. The disability has shortened her life span and has also destroyed her social life. The injuries and disability occasioned to the complainant were caused by the present appellant's negligence in defectively manufacturing the closet which she used for the purpose for which it was manufactured. In the complaint, she claimed a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs, the details of which have been given in the complaint, for physical disability, mental agony medical expenses etc. (3) The appellant contested the complaint on various grounds. Some preliminary objections were taken about the maintainability of the complaint with which we are not now concerned, as those have been overruled by the State Commission and were not agitated before us. It was not admitted by the appellant that the closet in question was manufactured by them or that it was installed in the complainant's residence. It was further pleaded that as the closet is made of fluid clay the closet is not at all likely to disintegrate or crumble into pieces and at the worst it could develop cracks after years of usage. There was no imperfection/negligence in the. manufacture of the closet. The compensation claimed under various heads has no nexus to the injury alleged to have been caused to the complainant. Other averments of the complainant were also denied.
(4) Upon the allegations of the parties, the State Commission had framed the following issues:
(1)Whether the complainant is a consumer and can she institute a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. (2) Whether the claim was barred by limitation.
(3) Whether the closet suffered from any defect.
(4) If so. whether the complainant is entitled to have compensation as claimed by her. Under issue no.