Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.      Though the manufacturer made several improvements to the choke at the time of its repair in Germany, making those improvements by itself does not prove that the choke when manufactured by them, was defective or had any defect in its designing or workmanship.  Those improvements do not prove any inherent or latent defect in the choke which was supplied as a part of the UPS to the complainant.  The expert Dr. Mitra inferred defect in the manufacture of the choke on the premise that the reasons given by the manufacturer for loosening of the metal sheets were not correct.  Even if it is presumed that the loosening of metal sheets could not have happened during transportation of the iron core, that by itself would not establish any deficiency or defective design in the material or workmanship in the machine nor can a finding of any latent or inherent defect can be drawn only on account of the inability of the manufacturer to find out the true cause of the loosening of the metal sheets which had resulted in short circuiting in the choke and had led to the burning.  Though the manufacturer while repairing the choke improved the mechanical stability of the iron core by additional cross-ties, the original fan box was replaced by a new box with two more powerful fans, additional guide plates were applied to the choke to optimize the air flow through the windings, the choke was equipped with a temperature sensor and a temperature monitoring relay, the aforesaid improvement which were aimed at preventing the recurrence of such an incident in future, by themselves do not lead to the inference that the choke when initially manufactured, had a defective design or was the product of a defective workmanship or that it had some latent or inherence defect in it.  The insurer therefore, was wholly unjustified in repudiating the claim on the aforesaid ground.