Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
M/s. Paramount Digital Color Lab & Ors. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2109-2110 OF 2018
Decided on : 15-02-2018
(2009) 9 SCC 79 – Relied upon
(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Appellants forming partnership firm – Staring business after purchasing the machine in question – National Commission highlighting the words “operators and helpers” to reject appellants’ claim of being consumer – Except this stray instance nothing on record to show use of the machine for commercial purposes – One machine would not need operators and helpers – Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 held collectively liable. (Para 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
In the year 2004, the appellants borrowed a loan from the Union Bank of India on 12.07.2004 and placed an order for the purchase of an imaging machine from the respondents paying a sum of Rs.62,00,000/-towards the cost of the machine and other collateral charges in advance. The machine did not give satisfactory performance up to the marked standard. As per the contract, the machine was under warranty for one year commencing from 05.08.2004. Since the performance of the machine was not up to the marked standard and as the appellants found number of defects in the product, such as existence of grains in the print etc., they made complaints to the respondents for the removal of defects; but even after several visits by the engineers of Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., as well as the engineers of the developer and designer mother company, the machine was never made to run to its marked standard. Ultimately, the engineers of the company vide their report dated 30.11.2004 admitted that the pre-loaded software in the machine was still under research and development and that the problems would be resolved by the new software which was expected to be released in January, 2005.
The appellants repeatedly requested respondent No. 1 for the replacement of machine with another piece of machine, but to no avail.
On 01.12.2005, respondent No. 1, through respondent Nos. 2 and 4, informed the appellants about the transfer of the Consumer Imaging Division to a newly created group of companies under the name and style of “Agfa Photo India Pvt. Ltd.”, informed about the insolvency of the Consumer Imaging Division of the mother Company, and required advance payment for the requisite chemical as they had to import the same, even after receiving and releasing the full cost of “Agfa Minilab D-Lab.1 Allrounder” machine for which the entire amount was already paid to the respondents on 05.08.2004 as per the package. Neither was it mentioned to the appellants that they would have to pay extra amount for the license key (password), nor was it printed in the general conditions of sale and delivery or in the terms and conditions provided to the appellants.
The appellants issued notice on 12.04.2006 calling upon respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay compensation for the loss and damages incurred and sustained by the appellants. The appellants approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow which came to be allowed in part on 21.02.2011. The State Commission held respondent Nos. 2 and 4 responsible for unfair trade practice and directed payment of compensation on account of loss, mental and physical torture and expenses of the complainants.
The appellants preferred First Appeal before the National Commission.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 also preferred First Appeal before the National Commission on the ground inter alia that the appellants did not come within the definition of “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002. By the impugned judgment the National Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. filed by the appellants and allowed the First Appeal filed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants are consumer.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) in First Appeal No. 194 of 2011 and First Appeal No. 222 of 2011, whereby the National Commission, by a common order, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants and allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents.
3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows: In the year 2004, the appellants being unemployed graduates decided to start a business of photography in partnership for self-employment and for their livelihood, for which they needed an advanced photo processing, developing and printing machine. The appellants contacted respondent No. 2 and enquired about the salient features and performance of “Agfa Minilab D-Lab. 1 Allrounder” machine. Respondent no. 3 was the then Managing Director and respondent No. 4 was the then General Manager, Marketing and Sales Consumer Imaging Division, Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. Both of them narrated several special features of the machine and apprised that the machine delivers excellent quality with negative and the digital technology with high productivity; they also assured that it is reliable open system supported by Agfa’s unsurpassed service and supported network and fully equipped. They also proposed several schemes like prompt service and free supply of paper and chemicals etc. They suggested the purchase of the machine and sent a proposal by way of quotation. Being impressed by the advice and suggestion of the respondents, the appellants borrowed a loan from the Union Bank of India on 12.07.2004 and placed an order for the purchase of the said machine for which the appellants paid a sum of Rs.62,00,000/-towards the cost of the machine and other collateral charges in advance. It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos. 1 to 4, despite having the knowledge that the machine which contains a pre-loaded software does not work properly and is unworthy of acceptance, had unfairly and carelessly sold the machine to the appellants on 05.08.2004 for their financial gain, causing financial loss to the appellants. It did not give satisfactory performance up to the marked standard, as narrated and assured by the respondents. Various technical, mechanical and software problems were detected in the machine. As per the contract, the machine was under warranty for one year commencing from 05.08.2004. Since the performance of the machine was not up to the marked standard and as the appellants found number of defects in the product, such as existence of grains in the print etc., they made complaints to the respondents for the removal of defects; but even after several visits by the engineers of Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., as well as the engineers of the developer and designer mother company, the machine was never made to run to its marked standard. Ultimately, the engineers of the company vide their report dated 30.11.2004 admitted that the pre-loaded software in the machine was still under research and development and that the problems would be resolved by the new software which was expected to be released in January, 2005.
Thereafter also, the appellants repeatedly requested respondent No. 1 for the replacement of machine with another piece of machine, but the respondents unfairly did not pay heed to the request of the appellants. Though the warranty had expired on 05.08.2005 after a period of one year, the defects in the machine could not be cured.
4. On 01.12.2005, respondent No. 1, through respondent Nos. 2 and 4, informed the appellants about the transfer of the Consumer Imaging Division to a newly created group of companies under the name and style of “Agfa Photo India Pvt. Ltd.”, informed about the insolvency of the Consumer Imaging Division of the mother Company, and required advance payment for the req
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
