Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Sh. M.G. Gavai Member; Smt. Ellen Dharkar, Member
NATIONAL SPORTS CLUB OF INDIA—Complainant
versus
MUKESH GANJAWALA & OTHERS—O.P.
Complaint Case No. 17/1992—Decided on 12.3.1992
DEFECTIVE GOODS - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 16(1) - MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO REFUND AND COMPENSATION - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an ice-cube making machine from the local dealer (opposite party no. 1), manufactured by opposite parties 2, 3, and 5. Despite several attempts to repair the machine, it failed to produce ice cubes as promised. The complainant filed a complaint seeking a refund of the purchase price, compensation for the loss suffered, and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the machine was defective and did not meet the complainant's requirements. The court held that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, compensation for the loss suffered, and costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the machine was defective and did not meet the complainant's requirements? 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, compensation for the loss suffered, and costs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which states that a buyer is entitled to reject goods that do not meet the contract's description or are not of merchantable quality. The court found that the machine was defective and did not meet the complainant's requirements. 2. The court interpreted Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines 'defective goods' as goods that are not in conformity with the quality, performance, or standards promised by the manufacturer. The court found that the machine was defective and the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, compensation for the loss suffered, and costs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and ordered the manufacturers (opposite parties 2, 3, and 5) to refund the purchase price of the machine with interest, pay compensation for the loss suffered, and pay costs to the complainant.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—The complainant, National Sports Club of India approached this Commission with the allegations that Ice-cube making machine (hereinafter referred as ‘machine’) purchased was defective. The opposite party no. 1 is the local dealer of the machine. The opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are the manufacturers of the machine. The opposite party no. 4 was having a service contract of the said machine with the complainant According to complainant he purchased the machine, viz. “Refco” Ice Cube making machine for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,406/- on 10.7.90 from opposite party no. 1. The said machine was delivered to complainant on 6.11. 1990. There was guarantee for the effective working of the machine for a period of 12 months. The documents of guarantee are at Ex. ’A’ and ‘8’ of the complaint The complainant alleged that the machine was delivered to him without proper checking and testing which fact was complained by the complainant. However, the said machine was commissioned on 12.11.90 for the first time. Ex. ’C’ is the report as regards the starting of the machine. According to complainant, from the very inception, the machine was not in a proper working condition. The complainant, therefore, on 19.11.90 communicated to opposite party no. 1 about the unsatisfactory results of the machine. On 23.11.90, the Opposite Party no. 4 attended the servicing of the said machine. However, the result was unsatisfactory. It was noticed that raw ice was coming out of the machine instead of ice cubes. The letter and the service report are collectively marked as Ex. ’D’. Again on 6.12.1990, the complainant wrote to Opposite Party no. 1 about the defective nature of the machine and requested to replace the said machine with a new one or to refund the purchase price. The said letter is at Ex. ’E’. The complainant further alleged that despite the efforts made by Opposite Party no. 1 and 4 to repair the said machine, it could not yield satisfactory results in as much as it was not producing ice-cubes but was giving out raw ice. The complainant, therefore, filed his complaint claiming refund of the cost of the machine with 18% P.A. interest. The complainant also claimed the amount of compensation for Rs. 11,760/- towards the loss suffered due to the non-functioning of the machine. The complainant also claimed costs.
2. The opposite parties were served with a notice u/Sec. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act individually. All of them received the aforesaid notices along with the copy of the complaint. However, on the date of hearing on 9.3.92, except opposite party Nos. 1 and 4, rest of the opponents did not appear before this Commission. The Commission therefore, proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties Nos. 2,3 and 5 who are the manufacturers of this machine. The complainant as well as the opposite parties 1 and 4 filed their documents, affidavits and were also heard through the respective Advocates.
3. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 in their joint written version admitted the sale of the machine to the complainant manufactured by opposite party no. 2 at Delhi. According to opposite party Nos. 1 and 4 they were mainly local dealers and service contractors and that they did their job of rendering necessary service to the complainants. It has been further stated that the manufacturer, opposite party no. 2 manufactured the machine in question at Delhi and sold the machine to the complainant through them. Thus, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 denied their responsibility to 35 refund the purchase price to complainant. The other contentions raised by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 are not of any consequence.
4. After carefully going through the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and the documents placed on record, it is abundantly clear that the machine was not properly functioning as per the advertisement and the representation made by the manufacturer to the complainant. The complainant wa
AI
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
