The complainants were considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act as the machine suffered defects during the guarantee period, and the court awarded compensation for the financial loss and mental agony caused by the defective machine.

ORDER

Sunil Kumar Garg, President - This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party M/s. Jupiter Enterprises on 30.4.2007 with the prayer that the complainants be awarded a sum of Rs. 17,32,640 towards cost of the warping machine in question along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.5.2006, Rs. 25,00,000 towards loss of business, Rs. 10,00,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 50,000 towards pecuniary loss.

2. The necessary fact giving rise to this complaint are as follows:

The complainant No. 1 M/s. Shree Ram Sulz Fab (P) Limited, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture of fabric and textile work and the complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are its Directors.

It was further stated in the complaint that for the purpose of manufacture of fabric and clothes, the complainants have decided to purchase a new Japiter Sectional warping machine with individual tension control creel model JM-100 (for short "the warping machine") from the opposite party-Jupiter Enterprises and through letter Annex. 2 dated 22.2.2006, the opposite party sent the sales agreement dated 22.2.2006 for supply of the said warping machine along with technical details, price and terms and conditions and as per the terms and conditions annexed with the sales agreement Annex. 2, the machine was guaranteed for a period of one year from the date of dispatch against any defect in workmanship and if any part was found defective during this period, the same shall be repaired or replaced by the opposite party free of cost.

It was further stated in the complaint that the opposite party assured that the warping machine, which was going to be supplied by it, was based on new technology and it would fulfil the requirements of the complainants and after its installation, the production would be considerably increased and it would give better results and more profits and it would also save time, labour and power. On that assurance of the opposite party, the complainants have placed order on the opposite party to supply the warping machine in question.

It was further stated in the complaint that the warping machine in question was purchased by the complainants from the opposite party for Rs. 17,32,640 and the bills of that warping machine dated 10.5.2006, 23.5.2006 and 26.5.2006 are marked as Annex. 3, Annex. 4 and Annex. 5 respectively and for purchase of that warping machine, the complainants took loan from the State Bank of India, Branch Bhilwara.

It was further stated in the complaint that the warping machine in question was installed by the opposite party in the factory premises of the complainants at Bhilwara on 10.5.2006 and according to the complainants, since then, it was not working properly and it was in extremely bad state and it was generating damaged goods/clothes and, thus, there was some defect in it and for that, the opposite party was orally informed and despite repeated oral requests for removing defects and repairing the warping machine in question, no heed was paid by the opposite party and, therefore, on 1.11.2006, the complainants wrote a letter (Annes. 6) to the opposite party stating that the warping machine supplied by it was not working properly since the date of installation and it was defective one as it was generating defective goods/clothes and because of that, it could not be used and it was lying idle for the last six months and, thus, a request was made to the opposite party to arrange to get the warping machine repaired or replace it with new one within seven days.

It was further stated in the complaint that when no reply was received from the opposite party, the complainants again wrote a letter dated 15.11.2006 (Annex. 8) to the opposite party with a request to either repair the warping machine in question or replace it by new one within 15 days failing which the opposite party would be held liable