1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

___________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri K.Pratik Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Sri Jayanth Naidu

and Sri Srinivas Swaroop

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1.(1995) 3 SCC 583

2. (2018) 14 SCC 81

3. (2020) 16 SCC 318

4. SLA (c) No.5510 of 2020 Dt.18.03.2025

5. (2023) 8 SCC 362

6. (2020) 2 SCC 265

7. (2013) 10 SCC 136

8. (1973) 1 SCC 633

9. (2022) 19 SCC 442

10. Civil Appeal No.6588 of 2023 dated 04.02.2026

11. (2011) 11 SCC 269

12. (2024) 9 SCC 509

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri K.Pratik Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Sri Jayanth Naidu and Sri Srinivasa Swaroop, learned counsel for

the respondents.

2. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the orders dated 31.01.2025

passed by the 1st respondent – National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’), in

F.A.No.24 of 2023 as well as the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the

2nd respondent – Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in

C.C.No.64 of 2016, whereby the claim of the complainant, who is the

3rd respondent herein, is partly allowed. By the said orders, the

opposite party No.2, the petitioner herein, was directed to refund a

sum of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12.5% per

annum from 30.06.2015 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

together with costs of Rs.20,000/-. It was further directed that upon

such payment, the petitioner shall be entitled to take back the entire

machinery from the complainant. It was also stipulated that in the

event of non-compliance with the payment of Rs.40,00,000/-, the rate

of interest shall stand enhanced to 14% per annum.

3. The facts leading to filing of the complaint before the learned

State Commission are that the complainant – M/s.Bhargava Art Printers

is a small propriety concern engaged in printing work for earning

livelihood through self-employment. The complainant purchased Amsky

Auesetter-832 CTCP with G & J-85 Plate Proposer with accessories vide

Invoice 20.04.2015, but it was installed only in the month of June,

2015. After installation, the complainant came to know that the

machine supplied belonged to the 2014 Model and not the 2015 Model,

despite the purchase order having been placed on 12.02.2015. It is the

further case of the complainant that instead of supplying brand new

one, the petitioner supplied a used and damaged one and after

installation, several defects were noticed, including in starting the

machine, accompanied by a continuous beeping sound indicating

malfunction. It was observed that when a paper role was placed

between the machine and the PSB, it caused damage and upon

providing support with a paper role, the machine emitted abnormal

noise when switched on and that the display panel located at the top

right corner of the machine frequently showed error messages, on

account of the leakage of air from the compressor.

4. The complainant asserts that in all paid Rs.40,00,000/- and due

to pay Rs.3,05,000/- and requested the petitioner to deliver the

machine, but the petitioner demanded to issue cheques for the balance

amount towards security, thereby the complainant – the 3rd respondent

herein executed six blank cheques in the month of February, 2015.

However, taking advantage of the blank cheques, the petitioner

misused the same and issued legal notice on 16.09.2015, for which,

appropriate reply was also issued on 30.09.2015; and that the

complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of

Rs.3,05,000/- subject to replacement of defective machinery with a

new one. However, despite the repeate