Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Present: Hon’ble We Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President; Sh. M.G. Gavai,
Member, Smt. Ellen Dharkar, Member
SANJAY VINAYAK PANT—Complainant
versus
M/s CHETANA MACHINERY & PAPER MART & ANOTHER—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 22 of 1990 — Decided 14.10.1992
A consumer is entitled to a refund of the purchase price of a defective product.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF DEFECTIVE OFFSET MACHINE - REPLACEMENT OF MACHINE AND COMPENSATION - CONSUMER - INTERPRETATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an offset machine from the opposite parties, who were a dealer and a manufacturer, respectively. The complainant paid the full consideration for the machine, but it was delivered late and was found to be defective. The complainant filed a complaint with the State Consumer Commission, which held that the machine was defective and ordered the manufacturer to refund the purchase price to the complainant. The National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission on the ground that the complainant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The State Consumer Commission found that the machine was defective and that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price. The National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission on the ground that the complainant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
Issues: 1. Whether the machine was defective? 2. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Consumer Commission found that the machine was defective based on the evidence presented by the complainant, including receipts for the purchase of the machine, correspondence with the opposite parties, and expert testimony. 2. The State Consumer Commission found that the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because he had purchased the machine for self-employment, not for commercial purposes. 3. The State Consumer Commission found that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price because the machine was defective and the opposite parties had failed to repair or replace it.
Final Decision: The State Consumer Commission ordered the manufacturer to refund the purchase price to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The State Consumer Commission also ordered the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs. 1,000 as costs.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This isa very old complaint in which the complainant has alleged that the Off-set machine sold to him by the opposite parties was totally defective and, there- fore, he claimed replacement of the machine and loss sustained by him and also other ancillary reliefs.
2. The complainant was heard by this Commission and had decided it on 7.12.90. This Commission had held that the machine sold to the complainant was defective and, therefore, the manufacturer, the opposite party No. 2 was ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 3,15,007/- to the complainant. It was also ordered that the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a. to the complainant. The aforesaid order was challenged by Super Engineering Corporation in Appeal No.17/ 91 before the National Commission at New Delhi. The National Commission set aside the order of this Commission dated 7.12.90 on the ground that no proper opportunity was given to Super Engineering Corporation for hearing them.
3. After aforesaid order of the National Commission, this Commission issued a fresh notices to all the parties and the complaint was fixed on 12.2.92. The notice was issued on 3.1.92 directing the parties to appear on 12.2.92 at the Office of the State Commission. The Opposite Party No. 1 received the notice but remained absent and sent a telegram for adjournment. Notice sent to Opposite Party No. 2 (O.P. 2) Super Engineering Corporation was not served as the registered letter was returned back to the Commission with the endorsement of the postal department dated 7.1.92 that the addressee was not found. On 12.3.92, fresh notice was issued to both the parties informing that instead of 2.4.92, the complaint will be heard on 12.5.92. Another notice dated 30.4.92 was issued to all the parties that instead of 12.5.92, the hearing will take place on 8.7.1992. This notice was received by all the parties. The Super Engineering Corporation by a letter dated 5.5.92 informed this Commission that they have engaged Mr. Pradeep Rajgopal, as an Advocate and they are enclosing the Vakalatanama of the said Advocate.
4. On the date of hearing i.e. on 8.7.1992 the complainant was present in person. The Opposite Party No.l was present in person but the O.P. No. 2 was absent A note was sent by Shri Rajgopal, Advocate for O.P. No. 2 for adjournment. This is rejected by this Commission on the ground that it was an old complaint. The complainant and O.P. No. 1 filed written argument.
Shortly stated, the facts are that the complainant is an unemployed youth who obtained a loan from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, Amravati for self-employment. The complainant had decided to purchase an Off-set machine out of the loan. The complainant, therefore, obtained the quotation dated 31.1.1989 from O.P. No. 1. The price quoted is stated to be Rs. 3,15,007/- inclusive of all taxes and FOR, Amravati. The description of the machine was mentioned as ‘Super Off-set Machine Model MCH-III’ Size 15” X 20”. The quotation is on the quotation form of Chetana Machinery and Paper Mart. However, the O.P. No. 2; on request from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation supplied the description of the Super Off-set Machine for Rs. 3,15,007/- with sales tax. It is also written in the said invoice dated 27.12.89 that Rs. 1,26,000/- has been received as advance from the local dealer, M/s. Chetana Machinery and Paper Mart, Amravati and a balance of Rs. 2,20,507.70 was to be recovered. The proforma invoice was in the name of complainant M/s. San Printers on the printed invoice form of Super Engineering Corporation, O.P. 2. The copy of the quotation is at Ex. 1 and the invoice is at Ex. 2. It was informed to the complainant by both the opposite parties that unless the entire amount is paid in advance, the machine will not be supplied to the complainant. The said letter is at Ex. 3. The complainant has alleged that he has paid 45% of the total price Rs. 1,56,007.70 to the Opposite Party N
