I.D.C. ELECTRONICS LTD. vs AJARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 5.10.1991 of the Maharashtra State Commission, New Bombay in Complaint No. 108/90.

THE Complaint was with regard to a C.I.L. 15-XEROX Machine, manufactured by I.D.C. Electronics and purchased by Respondent No. 1 Ajara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., for their office use, on 20.3.1989 for Rs. 98,940/-. THE Complainant Bank claimed that the machine was defective from the start and they made repeated complaints to the Dealer. M/s. Chaugule Industries Ltd. (Respondent No. 3 herein) from whom the machine was purchased, but no repairs were carried out. THE latter denied these allegations saying they discharged their obligations during warranty period of three months. THE Dealer also submitted that the purchaser Bank did not execute any maintenance contract with them and, therefore, they were not legally obliged to extend a service to them. According to the State Commission all the allegations were directed towards the defective nature of the machine and not with regard to after sales service. Also that these allegations were not controverted by the Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., the Appellant herein. The State Commission has held manufacturer, I.D.C. Electronics responsible for manufacturing and supplying defective goods through the Dealer and has passed ex-parte order against the manufacturer. The State Commission ordered the Appellant herein to return the price of Rs. 98.940/- received through Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1 with 16% interest from 28.3.89 and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for repairs carried out on the machine.

The Appellant I.D.C. Electronics have set forth various grounds in the memorandum in appeal against the order of the State Commission. The Appellant claim that they were not responsible as there was no privity of contract between them and the Respondent Bank. Also that they had not received any complaint or communication from Respondents No. 1 & 2.

THE Appellant had sold the machines to Respondent No. 3 in terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties on a principle to principal basis and the machines were to be sold under the brand name of Respondent No. 3. As such there was no relationship between the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. THE Respondent No. 3 should have carried out the servicing of the said machine and if there was any manufacturing defect in the said machine Respondent No. 3 should have brought it to their notice but this was admittedly not done. THE warranty/guarantee of the machine was given by the Appellant to Respondent No. 3 only against manufacturing defects and for trouble free performance for a period of 3 months from the date of sale by Respondent No. 3 to its customers but not exceeding six months under any circumstances from the date of supply by Appellant to Respondent No. 3. The Appellant has also appealed against the fact that State Commission proceeded ex-parte against them, when, they claim at no stage any communication was received by them from the State Commission informing them that if they fail to appear it would proceed ex-parte. But this is an understood fact that after receipt of notice, if any of the parties remain absent at the time of the hearing, they would be proceeded against exparte.

NOW, in cases where a sale of product has been made through a Dealer (or agent), both the manufacturer and the Dealer are jointly held responsible. Any agreement between the manufacturer and the dealer is their concern but as far as the ultimate consumer is concerned for any defect in the product or the service to go with it, both are responsible. Thus, if the charges were found to be valid then State Commission should have held them jointly responsible. Further, in this case the relationship between the Appellant (I.D.C.) and C.I.L. is not that of a manufacturer/supplier and a dealer. Further, nowhere in the arguments of the Appellant any mention has been made whether the Xerox Machine was purchased for a commercial purpose. In Synco Textiles v. Greaves Cotton (First Appeal No. 22 of 1989), I (1991) CPJ 499 (NC), we have given our interpretation of the term'' for a commercial purpose''. We hold that a Bank is a large commercial organisation and that the purchase of the Xerox machine by such an organisation has a close nexus with the commercial activity of the Bank. Hence, the machine was purchased for a commercial purpose, and since the services attached to it were not faulty, but it was established that the machine itself was faulty, this case cannot fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, we set aside the order of the State Commission. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.