Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Sunil Hali (Retd.), President, D.K. Kapoor, Member (Judicial)
Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
United Engineering Enterprises – Respondent
Complaint No. 3617
Decided On : 22-12-2017
Consumer Protection Act - Defective Machinery - 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) - The judgment discusses the complainant's claim for refund and compensation due to the supply of defective machinery. The court found the opposite parties to be deficient in providing service and held them liable for refunding the amount with interest and paying compensation to the complainant. The court also analyzed the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that the complainant fell within its scope.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant ordered a Plate Type Hydro Extractor from the opposite parties, which was found to be defective upon installation. Despite requests for replacement or refund, the opposite parties failed to take action, resulting in losses for the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the opposite parties to be deficient in providing service and held them liable for refunding the amount with interest and paying compensation to the complainant.
Issues: Defective machinery, refund, compensation, consumer definition
Ratio Decidendi: The opposite parties were deficient in providing service and were held liable for refunding the amount with interest and paying compensation to the complainant. The complainant fell within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest, pay compensation, and cover litigation expenses within a specified period.
Sunil Hali (Retd.), President
Complainant is a body corporate with its Head Office at Pachpahar Road, Bhawanimandi. Chenab Textile Mills is one of its units which is based in Kathua (J&K) and engaged in the manufacturing of yarn. In the course of its business activity, vide Order No. CTM/PO/619 dated 24.01.2013, it placed an order for supply of one number Plate Type Hydro Extractor, which order was subsequently amended vide Order No. CTM/PO/619A dated 08.02.2013 for supply of 4 Point inertia Plate Type Visco Dampers Mounted Hydro Extractor as per the specifications and price given in the afore mentioned orders. As per the terms and conditions of the order dated 24.01.2013, besides referring to various terms and conditions, it provides for guarantee of one year from the date of supply. The guarantee clause reads as under:
Guarantee:
"Hydro extractor to be supplied by you will be guaranteed for proper design, no material and manufacturing defects and no premature worn out of parts and for its required performance for a period of 12 months from the date of installation. You will be liable to replace the defective units free of cost within 10 days from the date of our intimation regarding defects."
2. The said condition was carried forward in the subsequent amended order issued on 08.02.2013, As per the original order dated 24.01.2013 which was amended on 08.02.2013, the mode of payment was 10% in advance and 80% against exchange of dispatch documents and written confirmation that the hydro extractor dispatched is complete in all respects. 10% amount was payable after installation within a period of one month. The guarantee clause provides that the machine so supplied should be as per the proper specifications and design and there should be no manufacturing defect or premature worn out of parts for its required performance for a period of 12 months from the date of installation. In the event of any defect in the units/parts, the same would be replaced free of cost within 10 days from the date of intimation regarding the defects.
3. As per the terms and conditions set out, the complainant paid 10% in advance and thereafter paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (rupees five lac only) vide Cheque No. 133743 dated 08.05.2013 and Rs. 4,22,500.00 (rupees four lac twenty two thousand five hundred only) vide Cheque No. 133744 dated 08.05.2013 drawn on Punjab National Bank. Remaining 10% amount was paid after installation of the machine. As per the detail the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 11,25,000.00 plus Rs. 22,000.00 on account of 'excise duty', i.e. a total of Rs. 11,47,500.00 (rupees eleven thousand forty seven thousand five hundred only), which is clearly visible from the Tax Invoice dated 26.04.2013 appended with the complaint as Annexure-E.
4. On the installation of the machinery, the representative Engineer of opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant for the purpose of commissioning of the 'hydro extractor'. It was detected by the representative engineer that the motor of the hydro extractor was totally damaged during the transit and complainant was requested to procure a new motor of 25 H.P. as reflected in the letter of the engineer dated 17.05.2013 appended with the complaint as Annexure-G. The motor was procured and installed in the factory by the complainant. On this being done, complainant requested the opposite parties to depute their technical engineer for installation of the hydro extractor. The engineer visited on 25.05.2013 and the process was completed on 27.05.2013 in presence of the Senior Manager Projects of the complainant-company. In their joint report submitted on 27.05.2013, it was observed that the machine is having 'higher vibrations and is under observation'. It was further observed that extra two numbers visco dampers are required to be installed. In this behalf a communication was addressed to the company for sending modified dampers. This communication was addressed by the complain
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
