Mr. Monoranjan Ghosh, Member — This case has been initiated by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The wheel of the facts around which the present complaint moves in short:

3. That the petitioner purchased Single Colour Sheet-Fed Offset Machine Model PO 25 SUPER SL No. 497 with opposite party No. 1 who is the sister concern of opposite party No. 1, the manufacturer of the said machine. Petitioner duly paid Rs. 7,34,745.19 p. and the said machine was installed. The machine started giving trouble from the initial stage. Steps were taken by the opposite party to set the same right but failed. Finding no other way ultimately the petitioner initiated this proceeding claiming replacement of the defective machine so supplied by the opposite party and to direct them to pay the entire cost of the machine together with the damages so sustained by the petitioner because of the rejection of the printing jobs amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- and also to grant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 / - for the loss of goodwill, harassment etc. The opposite party contested the said case by filing written version and denied the claim of the petitioner.

4. The opposite party challenged the said case on the point of maintainability also.

5. That by order dated 11.1.1996 this Commission disposed of the said application of the opposite party with regard to the maintainability of the said case and held "if there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in seeing to the proper functioning of a machine during warranty period then complaint before Consumer Forum is maintainable though the machine was purchased for commercial purpose" relying on decisions reported in 1992 (1) CPR 525 of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and other decisions reported in 1992 (1) CPR 272,1994 (1) CPR 132 and I (1992) CPJ 157. That against the said order the opposite party preferred revision before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being R.P. Case No. 215/96 and on 7.8.1996 at the hearing before the Apex Court the opposite party gave undertaking to set at right the machine to the satisfaction of the petitioner M/s. Bose Printing House within the stipulated period. That on 10.10.1996 the opposite party preferred an application before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission praying extension of time to set the machine right for a period of two weeks and the said Hon'ble Commission granted the same. That inspite of the same when the opposite party failed to repair the machine the petitioner herein filed S.C. Execution Case No. 45 of 1997 and this Commission appointed Expert to inspect the machine and to file a report in connection to the same. The Expert duly filed the said report and upon perusal of the said report this Commission to avoid further delay, directed the parties herein to complete the hearing of the aforesaid case and as such both the petitioner and the opposite party filed their respective affidavit.

6. Admittedly the petitioner purchased the machine and during warranty period the said machine became defective. The opposite parties tried to set the machine right but failed and ultimately the petitioner herein initiated this proceeding wherein the opposite parties challenged the said case on maintainability. This Commission by its order dated 11.1.1996 disposed of the application for maintainability and held that the said case is perfectly maintainable. Against the same the opposite parties preferred revision application before the Hon'ble Apex Consumer Court being R.P. Case No. 215/R/1995 and at the time of hearing the opposite parties provided undertaking before the said Hon'ble Commission to set the machine right. Inspite of the same as per the report so submitted by the Expert of Printing Technology it is patent that the opposite parties have failed to set the machine right as per their undertaking before the Hon’ble Apex Consumer Co