AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant / respondent purchased a Twister P.C. machine from the petitioner company for being used in his photo studio and digital laboratory. The machine was delivered to him on 25.11.2009. The complainant made a down payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance payment was agreed to be made in instalments. The case of the complainant / respondent is that during the demonstration on Video shooting at the time of delivery itself, he noticed some problems and therefore, the petitioner replaced part worth Rs.15,000/-, issuing a receipt to him in this regard. This is also the case of the complainant/respondent that on inspection of the Twister P.C., some more defects were found and the defective parts were replaced by the petitioner company. The machine, according to the complainant, did not function smoothly even thereafter. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount of Rs.2,02,897/- which he had paid to the petitioner company, along with compensation and cost of litigation.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company, which denied any defect in the Twister P.C. sold to the complainant. It was stated in the reply that there was no defect in the machine at the time it was installed and a declaration referring to the amount of Rs.15,000/- was issued to the complainant, on his request, for tax purposes and for being used in transit.
The District Forum vide its order dated 01.1.2015 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner company to refund the price paid by the complainant, along with compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 07.4.2016, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner company is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
When this petition came up for hearing on 03.8.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated, on instructions, that without any admission of any liability, the petitioner is ready and willing to repair the product in question at its own cost and render it fully workable and free from defects. During the course of hearing on 08.9.2016, the complainant was asked to give his consent to the aforesaid offer made by the petitioner. The complainant however, declined the offer saying that he had since purchased another machine and was not interested in repair of the product purchased from the petitioner company. The stand taken by the complainant clearly betrays lack of bonafide on his part since no such stand was taken by him in the consumer complaint. Moreover, there is no evidence of a new machine having been purchased by the complainant in replacement of the allegedly defective machine supplied to him by the petitioner company.
Since it was the complainant who was alleging defects in the machine purchased from the petitioner company and the consumer complaint was filed about 1 1/2 years after the warranty was over, the onus was upon him to prove that the machine supplied to him suffered from a manufacturing defect. Admittedly, no opinion or expert evidence was produced by the complainant before the District Forum to prove that the machine supplied to him suffered from some manufacturing defect. In the absence of such an evidence, the fora below were not justified in holding the machine supplied by the petitioner company to be defective, when the stand taken by the petitioner company was that the machine supplied by it did not have any manufacturing defect. For this reason alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Drawing my attention to the document dated 25.11.2009, which purports to be a declaration given by the petitioner company, it was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the machine was defective at the time it was delivered and had to be repaired. As noted earlier, the case of the petitioner company is that the above referred document was given to the complainant for the tax purpose and for being used in transit. As per the aforesaid document, a parcel containing one PC, received from the complainant for repairs was purportedly returned after repairs. Approximate value of the said article was stated to be Rs.15,000/- in the said declaration. Since the machine was delivered to the complainant on 25.11.2009 itself, there could be no question of the said machine having been received from him and having been returned to him after repair on that very date. Moreover, no payment of Rs.15,000/- is even alleged by the complainant. It is therefore, obvious that the aforesaid document dated 25.11.2009 was issued only for the purpose of being used during transit of the machine and cannot be taken as evidence of the machine being defective and having been repaired on the very day it was sold. In any case no sensible person would accept a machine which is found to be defective at the time of demonstration itself. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the machine when sold to the complainant was defective.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that since the complainant failed to prove any defect in the machine purchased from the petitioner company, the fora below were not justified in directing refund of the amount paid by the complainant and awarding compensation to him. It would be pertinent to note here that admittedly, the complainant has not paid the balance sale consideration and a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is already pending against him before the concerned Court.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, if the complainant wants to avail the offer made by the petitioner on 03.8.2016, he can inform the petitioner accordingly, within one week from today and in that case, the petitioner will comply with the statement made by it before this Commission on 03.8.2016.