A consumer is entitled to compensation for loss caused by deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

G.G. Loney, President — The short facts giving rise to this consumer dispute are that the complainant M/s. Vishwa Jyoti Printers is a SSI Printings Unit in Nagpur doing the printing business. The complainant purchased the printing machine from the opposite party M/s Molins of India Ltd., who are having their manufacturing unit in Punjab. The complainant alleges that the opposite party offered very attractive machine with the assurance of good quality and assured number of 3600 to 7200 impressions within an hour with one year warranty period. According to the complainant, the assurance was given to the complainant by Mr. Virendra Kumar, Assistant Marketing Manager of the opposite party about the machine with good prints to the tune of 3600 minimum to 7200 maximum per hour. The cost of the machine was stated at Rs. 1.25 lacs. Believing the assurance of the Marketing Manager, the complainant arranged for the loan from their bankers and purchased the said machine, for a consideration of Rs. 1,22,350.90. The invoice No. 432 dated 25.11.88 showing the break up of the payment is placed on record. The machine was installed at the premises of the complainant between 12.12.88 to 16.12.88. After the complainant started working on the machine the paper feeding of the machine was not giving proper results as a result of which the work was stopped. No. 4 button was also not working. The printing work of the complainant was, therefore, stopped. A written complaint dated 22.12.88 was, therefore, lodged by complainant with the manufacturer at Punjab. Some efforts were also made by the mechanics of the opposite party to set the machine in order from time to time. The work memos of repairing the machine dated 13.1.89, 10.6.89, 5.8.89, 21.8.89 and 11.10.89 duly signed by mechanic are placed on record. According to the complainant, despite the repeated repairs within the warranty period of one year the printing machine was not giving the assured results of printing which were advertised by the opposite party. Thus the complainant alleges that the machine was defective. It is also alleged that there was no proper service, as expected during warranty period. The complainant further alleged that he was put to a loss of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant, further alleged that he served a legal notice to the opposite party through Shri Vijay Daga, Advocate, dated 10.9.1989 claim ing the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss, suffered by the complainant as a result of deficiency in the service of the printing machine. The notice was not replied by the opposite party. Ultimately, the complainant presented this complaint to this Commission on 10.8.90.

2. The notice u/Sec. 13(2) of the Act was sent to the opposite party on 6.9.90. No version was filed by the opposite party in reply to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, the complaint was posted for final hearing on 26.2.91 at Nagpur. A notice of the same was sent to the opposite party which was received as is clear from the acknowledgement placed on record. On the date of hearing, the opposite party was represented by one Shri S.D. Samant, Assistant Manager, Co-ordination with a request to adjourn the case for four months till June, 1991. In view of the long delay on the part of the opposite party, in not filing the version within the statutory period of 30 days and the legal mandate to dispose of the Complaint within 90 days we rejected that application and adjourned the complaint on the next date i.e. on 27.2.19, to enable opposite-party to defend its case. On 27.2.91, Shri S.D. Samant filed an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party denying the allegations made by the complainant. Besides the affidavit no other documents were placed on record by the opposite party.

3. Considering the allegations made by the complainant and its denial in the affidavit of Shri S.D. Samant, the following points arise for our consideration:

(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protec