ORDER
1. Respondent No. 1 is Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat Hindu Dharma Sanskriti Bhawan which is represented by its President Mr. Ashok Trivedi. He has argued this case on behalf of Respondent No. 2 who had purchased a Prestige Pressure Cooker of five litres' capacity, from M/s. Meghna Metals, Nagpur, on 21.10.1986 with ten years' guarantee. On 10.11.1989, the Cooker suddenly burst and exploded causing fracture in the right hand of Ms. Meenal Telrandhe, wife of Respondent No. 2. The appellants were informed of the accident on 4.1.1991 and were required to pay Rs. Five Lakhs as compensation besides Rs. 38,000/- incurred as expenses for the treatment of Mrs. Meenal.
2. Respondent No. 2 approached the State Commission with the above claim which was allowed for a sum of Rs. One Lakh as compensation and Rs. 38,000/- for medical expenses with a further direction to the appellants to replace the Pressure Cooker by a new one.
3. The order of the State Commission was challenged in appeal before the National Commission which dismissed the appeal and consequently, the appellants have approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the claim preferred by the Respondent was liable to be rejected both by the State Commission and the National Commission on the ground that though the accident had occurred on 10.11.1989, the appellants were informed about it after a long lapse of more than a year, namely, on 4.1.1991 which was indicative of the falsity of the claim. It is also contended that the medical bills submitted by Respondent No. 2 indicate that only a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was spent on the treatment of Mrs. Meenal while Rs. 29,000/- were spent towards taxi fare for the journey from Nagpur to Rajnand Gaon, 540 Kms. away and for the journey from Nagpur to Indore, 980 Kms. away. It is also pointed out that the appellants had sent their written statement by registered A.D. post with copies to the respondents who admittedly have received the copies, but the State Commission in its judgment has mentioned that written statement was not filed. The other contention is that the National Commission was wholly wrong in invoking the principle of the maxim Res Ipso Loquitor in the instant case.
5. After having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also Mr. Ashok Trivedi on behalf of Respondent No. 2, we feel that the judgment passed by the State Commission as also the National Commission cannot be sustained.
6. The accident had allegedly occurred on 10.11.1989 but was reported to the appellants only on 4.1.1991. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the matter was not immediately reported to the appellants. Moreover, wife of Respondent No. 2 who is said to have sustained a fracture in the right arm on account of bursting of the Prestige Pressure Cooker has not been examined as a witness in the case nor has any affidavit been filed on her behalf so as to co-relate the injuries sustained by her with the accident in question. The National Commission in these circumstances, was not justified in invoking the maxim Res Ipso Loquitor so as to place the burden on the appellants to show as to how the accident had occurred. Had the matter been reported immediately to the appellants, the story would have been different. The appellants could have investigated the whole matter at the spot and could have come to a positive conclusion whether the accident had occurred on account of manufacturing defect in the Pressure Cooker or on account of mishandling. Since the matter was reported after more than a year to the appellants, the immediate investigation could not be taken up by them, otherwise they could have explained whether the accident had occurred on account of manufacturing defect or misuse of the Pressure Cooker by Respondent No. 2 or his wife.
7. A perusal of the bill submitted by Respondent No. 2 before the State Commission indicates that Respondent No. 2 had spent only a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards the medical treatment of his wife while the rest of the amount of Rs. 29,000/- was spent by him towards taxi fare for the journey undertaken by him from Nagpur, where he resided, to Rajnand Gaon, 540 Kms. away, or to Indore which was 980 Kms. away. When wife of Respondent No. 2 was being treated at Nagpur where all medical facilities were available and the Doctor, who treated her, also resided at Nagpur, there was no occasion to undertake the journey to Rajnand Gaon or to Indore. In any case, the amount spent by Respondent No. 2 in undertaking the journey from Nagpur to Rajnand Gaon or Indore by taxi cannot be claimed from the appellants.
8. It was, at this stage, pointed out to us that the appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with the National Commission which has been withdrawn by Respondent No. 2. He has also been paid the price of a new Prestige Pressure Cooker of five litres' capacity. It is fairly stated on behalf of the appellants that the amount already withdrawn by the respondents from the National Commission as also the amount which has been paid to Respondent No. 2 for the value of a new Pressure Cooker, will not be claimed back. That being so, we leave the matter here.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgments passed by the State Commission as also by the National Commission are set aside with the observation that the amount already withdrawn by Respondent No. 2 or the value of the Pressure cooker paid to him shall not be claimed back by the appellants. There will be no order as to costs.