IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only within parameters specified in provision.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.949 of 2008 in which order dated 05.02.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.481 of 2007 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party(s)) were Appellant(s) before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA No.949 of 2008 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No.481 of 2007.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 26.09.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments on 10.10.2023 (Petitioner) and 17.10.2023 (Respondent) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i) The Complainant/Respondent is a proprietary firm and manufactures Flex Sign Boards and ordered a machine named Wit Colour Flax Printing Machine for Rs.6,50,000/- from the Opposite Parties/Petitioners. Payments totaling Rs.4,15,000/- were paid via demand drafts and cheques. Despite this, the Opposite Parties /Petitioner sent a Max Zed Machine instead. Upon the Complainant/Respondent’s complaint regarding the machine, Opposite Parties suggested YS 3204 Ishan Machine and agreed to accept the Max Zed Machine in return.

(ii) The Complainant subsequently paid an additional Rs.6,35,000/- for the YS 3204 Ishan Machine and issued post-dated cheques. A total of Rs.7,40,000/- was paid, including Rs.1,05,000/- for ink and accessories.

(iii) The Machine, which was received on 12.09.2006, failed to start despite numerous attempts by the OP’s engineer. Due to ongoing issues with starting the machine, the Complainant stopped payment on three post-dated cheques. Notices were sent by the Complainant, but the OP did not resolve the issues of the machine and initiated legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Applicant.

(iv) Despite paying Rs.1,50,000/- under pressure, the machine remained non-functional. The OPs did not keep their promises to start and install the machine, leading to further complaints. The machine continued to be defective, and attempts to repair it were unsuccessful. The OPs failed to replace defective parts properly or start the machine.

(v) The Complainant has suffered significant financial loss and mental distress due to the OPs’ failure to provide a working machine or timely service. The Complainant seeks (a) Repair and proper installation of the machine. (b) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for inconvenience and financial loss. (c) Refund of Rs.12,00,000/- with 12% annual interest from 12.09.2006. (d) Court and counsel fees of Rs.20,000/-. As the case is within this court’s jurisdiction as the transactions and payments occurred in Gwalior.

5. Vide Order dated 05.02.2008, in the CC No.481 of 2007 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

“Resultantly, by allowing the present complaint, Opposite Parties are ordered that they by starting the machine sold out by them to the complainant, within a period of one month, shall provide 6 months’ warranty and service or to make refund of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) to him. The Opposite Parties shall also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the expenses of this case, to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the amount in the same ratio, in