ORDER

Notices were issued on this appeal on 10.03.2023 and the appellant/complainant had appeared in person on 08.08.2023 to advance his submissions. 

Since the respondent/opposite party had not yet been served, a direction was issued to serve the respondent/opposite party on their email address.  Accordingly, learned counsel put in appearance on 22.11.2023, where-after the appeal has been heard with the consent of the learned counsel finally today.

Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 has recorded peculiar findings, inasmuch as the complaint was with regard to a defect in the machine supplied by the respondent that was purchased for a price of Rs.15,60,066/-.  The machine had been purchased after taking a term loan from the Punjab National Bank, which was a Bag Making Machine that was installed by the complainant to earn his livelihood by self-employment.  Learned counsel contends that the complaint has been dismissed as pre-mature on the ground that the complainant had not issued a legal notice to the opposite party prior to the filing of the complaint.  The other direction given by the State Commission is urged to be equally untenable whereby the supplier/opposite party has been granted one month’s time to repair the machine on receipt of the order or on issuing legal notice by the complainant within 45 days and then if the complainant is still dissatisfied, he has been given liberty to file a fresh complaint.  The submission is that this was not the relief prayed for nor such a direction could have been give once the complaint had been dismissed for want of legal notice.  The submission is that the State Commission has delivered an order which is neither in conformity of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) nor do the directions in any way grant relief to the complainant with regard to the defect in the machine and the compensation claimed in respect thereof.  The contention is that the impugned order is unjust and untenable and therefore deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that on the one hand the complainant contends that the answering opposite party had not responded to his concerns intimated through mail whereas on the other hand he also submits that an engineer was sent who inspected and gave his suggestions with regard to the repair of the machine.  It is also urged that the direction in paragraph-18 of the impugned order satisfies the contention of the complainant and there is no occasion to entertain this appeal, inasmuch as there is every likelihood that the State Commission may still arrive at the same conclusion and give the same directions.

In order to appreciate the contention of both the parties, the findings recorded by the State Commission in the background of the dispute need to be reproduced.  Accordingly, the findings given in paragraphs 12 to 18 are extracted hereunder:-

FINDINGS :-

12.     Admittedly, the machine in question was installed at the place of work of the complainant in Village Saraswati Nagar, P.O.Hatkoti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. on 14.07.2018.

13.     The admitted fact emerging on record is that the complainant purchased the aforesaid machine on 14.07.2018.

14.     The emails dated 16.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 sent to the Proprietor of opposite party Annexure C-7 and Annexure C-8 too is disputed by the opposite party in its reply.

15.     The machine in question is in the possession of the complainant.

16.     The admitted fact emerging on record is that till date no legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite party.

17.     In these circumstances, without commenting the merits of the case, the present complaint is pre-mature qua the opposite party. As such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed at this