Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38657
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inder Singh Mehta, President, Yogita Dutta, Member
Control Print Limited – Appellant
Versus
Padam Graphics – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 25/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivalik Bhaik, Parveen Chandel
For the Respondents: Raditya Katoch, Raman Jamalta
A purchaser of machinery for commercial purposes is considered a 'consumer' within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act when the grievance arises from a deficiency in services—such as installation and warranty fulfillment—provided by the manufacturer or supplier during the warranty period.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 47(4)(d) - Commercial purpose - Even if a machine is purchased for commercial use, the purchaser qualifies as a consumer in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or supplier if defects arise during the warranty period.
(B) Deficiency In Service - Failure to rectify defects - Where a supplier fails to honor warranty obligations regarding repair and installation of machinery, it constitutes a deficiency in service warranting compensation. (Paras 9, 10, 22)
Facts of the case:
Complainant purchased a machine for facemask manufacturing. The machine was allegedly plagued with defects, and the supplier failed to fulfill its installation and repair obligations, leading to substantial production losses.
Findings of Court:
The machine was found to have performance issues as documented by an independent surveyor. The tribunal rejected the defense that the complainant was not a 'consumer' due to the commercial nature of the purchase, as warranty-related service failures fall under the scope of the Act. The tribunal also affirmed its territorial jurisdiction as the machine was installed within the state.
Issues: Whether the buyer of a machine for commercial purposes qualifies as a consumer under the Act due to service failure, and whether the Commission has territorial jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The purchaser qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act because the complaint pertains to services rendered (warranty/installation) rather than just the goods. Territorial jurisdiction is established where the cause of action—installation and defects—arose.
Result: Complaint partly allowed; the supplier is ordered to make the machine operational free of cost and pay compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of complaint, nature of machine, and parties' pleadings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding commercial purpose and defect verification. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. jurisdictional standing and maintainability of complaints for commercial entities. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence, warranty terms, and determination of deficiency in service. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. issuance of final directions and compensation orders. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
O R D E R:
The complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.1,07,60,800/- alongwith interest @24% from the date of payment; to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment; to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account deficiency in service etc.
2. Brief facts of case are that complainant is having manufacturing factory in Nalagarh since 2010 and is registered under MSME Act. During the covid-19 pandemic, the complainant decided to take opportunity to make facemask and accordingly placed an order with the opposite party/Padam Graphics to purchase a Fully Automatic Facemask Making Machine with ear Loop Auto Punch alongwith Air compressor (3HP) and Servo Stabilizer (15KV). The opposite party had assured the complainant about immediate delivery of machine by saying that the machine is in India, but after payment of advance amount of Rs.40.30 lacs to the opposite party, the complainant was informed that the machine has to be imported. The complainant objected and asked to cancel the order and return the amount, however, opposite party refused to cancel the order. The complainant left with no choice decided to continue with the purchase. Thereafter the opposite party/Padam Graphics again asked for Rs.12.50 lacs from the complainant on account of air freight charges, which were duly paid to the opposite party. The complainant thereafter paid the balance payment of Rs.67,30,800/- on 07.05.2020. As per purchase order, the machine was to be delivered on 20.04.2020, but the actual delivery was given on 07.05.2020. The machine was carrying warranty of one year for services and five years for spare parts against manufacturing defect in the machine. The machine in question was not operational from the beginning and installation by the opposite party was also not completed till date. The complainant sent multiple reminders requesting the opposite party to install the machine, but the same was not completed. The machine in question is not as per the quality and specifications as was promised and the machine is not able to produce the correct quality and quantity of facemasks and there are multiple issues observed in the machine. The opposite party did not honour its commitment for immediate installation of the machine and also not sent its engineer for installation. Till date machine has not been installed and is not able to manufacture the correct quality and quantity of facemask and as such, the complainant has to suffer substantial losses. Many parts supplied in the machine are defective and not functioning properly and are also not being replaced by M/s. Padam Graphics. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party/company by filing reply. The opposite party/company has taken preliminary objections that the complainant is factory registered under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Act , thus, cannot be termed as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019; the complainant has purchased the machine purely for commercial purpose; this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands; estoppel and non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. A rejoinder was filed by the
