Deepa Sangma vs Godrej Photo -Me Ltd

THE complainant in this petition is the proprietor of M/s. Supertech Images, a firm dealing in colour - photo processing, situated at Tura (Meghalaya). This photo processing unit was set up by the complainants husband in order to sustain himself and his family through self -employment. THEy had obtained a loan of Rs. 12 lacs to finance the purchase of the photo unit from MIDC upon payment of interest at 15.5% p.a. and had taken on rent the premises for setting up the unit, besides employing 4 employees to help them run the unit.

FOR this business the complainant had purchased a photo unit comprising of Print Leader Ultimate and Film Leader Ultimate from the opposite party, Godrej Photo -Me Limited, having its Regd. Office at Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as the Supplier), upon payment of Rs. 16,06,496. The photo unit was installed by the Supplier on 24.8.1999 and was covered by a warranty for 6 months. Immediately thereafter the unit started mal -functioning and the complainant made repeated telephonic requests to the Supplier for rectification of the defects between the period 28.8.1999 to 21.10.1999. Having failed to evoke any response, the complainant wrote to the Supplier on 21.10.1999 seeking immediate action and compensation. After further requests and reminders the Supplier deputed its engineer to rectify the defects only on 16.4.2000 but even then the machine was left in an inoperable condition which led the complainant to issue a pleaders notice to the Supplier on 22.5.2000. It was only then that the Suppliers engineer took up and completed the job of rectification on 8.7.2000.

THE grievance of the Consumer is that a defective machine was supplied to them and they were unable to run it for almost 11 months despite having paid for it in full. Even the repairing work was carried out after a great deal of persuasion, 11 months after its installation. During this period the Complainant had to suffer immense financial losses on various heads including rent, salary, interest and loss of profit, besides the mental agony and harassment to the extent that the complainants husband died under the mental strain. The complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 7,06,093 to be paid as compensation under various heads, along with interest of 18% p.a.

THE complaint was filed before this Commission as far back as on 13.6.2001. Notice to show cause was despatched to the opposite party vide registered A/D letter postal receipt No. C 3020 dated 16.9.2002. Although the A/D Card was not received back, vide order dated 28.4.2004 this Commission recorded that service of notice was deemed to have been completed vide Section 28(A) of the . Thereafter, hearing of the case was fixed on several occasions but none appeared for the opposite party/Supplier. The last notice dated 1.3.2005 fixing 28.3.2005 as the date of hearing of the case was despatched to the opposite party by registered post receipt No. B 5121 dated 4.3.2005. Even on 28.3.2005 neither did the opposite party appear nor deny or dispute the allegations contained in the complaint. As the Supplier committed and failed to take any action to represent its case, this Commission proceeded to settle the consumer dispute ex -parte on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. We have heard Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the complainant. We have also perused the complaint petition which has been filed under affidavit, the annexures, the documents relied upon by the complainant and also the Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of her case.

THE facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above are fairly uncomplicated and are fully borne out by the records before us. The opposite party has not denied or disputed the allegations contained in the petition although the matter has been pending for almost 4 years. Having perused the records and applied our minds thereon and having heard the appearing Counsel, we are satisfied that the photo unit supplied by M/s Godrej Photo -Me to the complainant indeed did suffer from defects which made it inoperable for a period of almost 11 months since installation and further that the Supplier was negligent in removing the defects in the machine and deficient in its services, that too during the warranty period, thereby causing loss and injury to the consumer.

WE are also clear in our view that the loss and injury suffered by the complainant owing to the negligence of the opposite party is required to be compensated. It only remains for us to quantify the compensation in a fair and just manner. The complainant has claimed total compensation of Rs. 7.06 lacs under various heads, along with interest @ 18%. These heads include the salary and rent paid by her as well as the loss of business profit. We do not propose to grant any relief under these heads.

IT is seen that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 12.00 lacs from Meghalaya Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (MIDC) upon payment of interest at 15.5% p.a. to finance the photo -unit and invested the remaining sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs from her own funds. The interest that had to be paid to MIDC for the period from 24.8.1999 to 8.7.2000 (approx. 10 1/2 months) was a loss to the complainant, directly attributable to the deficiency in service on the part of the suppliers as the photo -unit was non -functional during this period. The aforesaid interest paid to MIDC by the complainant works out to Rs. 1,62,750 and in our view the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the same by the opposite party.

FURTHER , on their own investment of Rs. 4.00 lacs, which remained dormant and economically unfruitful, we award interest @ 12% p.a. for 10 1/2 months to the complainant, which works out to Rs. 42,000. It will be seen that the relief given above only serves to recoup the direct financial loss suffered by the complainant and nothing else. The Honble Supreme Court has in it judgment reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=A.I.R. 2004 SC 2141 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, laid down that award of compensation must be under different separate head and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each case. It is thus clear that the compensation is not limited to one head only. We are satisfied from the records before us that the complainant suffered acute mental agony and harassment owing to the actions and inactions of the opposite party as discussed above for which, upon proper application of mind, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant as compensation under this head. She is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000 as costs of this complaint.

THE total compensation hereby awarded is therefore, Rs. 2,34,750 (Rupees two lacs thirty four thousand seven hundred fifty only) which the opposite party is hereby directed to pay to the complainant within 15 (fifteen) days of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which this sum will bear further interest @ 15% p.a. from this date till the date of payment.

THE complaint petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Complaint disposed of.