State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sandeep Kumar vs Goyal Copier Company on 26 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 105 of 2013
Date of institution : 31.01.2013
Date of decision : 26.05.2014
Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Krishan Kumar, resident of
Dharamshala Road, Near Arya School, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada,
District Mansa.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
Goyal Copier Co., S.C.O. No.15, Super Market, Court Road,
Bathinda, District Bathinda.
......Respondent- Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
19.12.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate.
For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant for the modification of the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the respondent/opposite party was directed to rectify the machine within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation. As per the prayer made in the appeal: "the relief was sought in the complaint for the refund of Rs.67,000/-, as the price of the photostat machine, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs and that it has been proved that the opposite party committed unfair trade First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 2 practice by supplying the second hand machine and, as such, special compensation of Rs.25,000/- is to be awarded for that unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- as special costs for unnecessary harassment to him for supplying defective second hand machine." The modification of the order has been sought to that effect.
2. In the complaint it was alleged by the complainant that for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment he obtained the quotation for new Multifunctional Printer Copier (R/C), Model 2830 (in short, "the machine") from the opposite party, who supplied the same through reference No.2120 dated 8.3.2012. It was on the assurance given by the opposite party about the good quality of the machine that he purchased the same, vide Bill No.649 dated 16.3.2012, after the payment of Rs.67,000/- as the price thereof. For purchasing that machine, he had obtained a loan of Rs.60,000/- from State Bank of Patiala, Bareta and the machine was also supplied at that place itself. The same was not at all working properly from the very inception and repeated complaints were made by him to the opposite party. In fact, the opposite party supplied the machine of inferior quality, which was having major manufacturing defect. It came to his knowledge that it was not a new machine but was a rebuilt machine and, thus, the opposite party had supplied second hand machine to him though he had purchased a new machine. The same was not giving proper result and the paper started blocking therein. He contacted the opposite party regarding the manufacturing defect but he did not bother. On 15.5.2012 the opposite party sent the Mechanic to check the machine but the same First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 3 remained non-functional even after the repairs. Thereafter he served a registered legal notice dated 16.5.2012 upon the opposite party but to no effect. On account of this act of the opposite party, he suffered lot of hardship, mental and financial harassment, for which he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party, in addition to the direction to refund the price of the machine i.e. Rs.67,000/-.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing a detailed written reply before the District Forum. In that written reply it admitted that the quotation for the machine had been supplied to the complainant and that thereafter he purchased the same and was supplied to him. It also admitted that on 15.5.2012 its Mechanic visited the premises of the complainant and changed some parts of the machine. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that it is dealing in rebuilt copiers and it was rebuilt machine itself and not the new one, which was sold to the complainant but the same was not a defective one. There was neither any guarantee nor any warranty given by it to the complainant. Such machines are being sold "as it is and in which condition it is". It was digital electronic machine and the complainant was required to get 2 days training before the installation thereof in order to know about its handling and that training was being provided by it free of costs before the purchase itself. The complainant was asked to join the training but he denied by stating that he was already trained. In fact, he was having no training and due to that he First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 4 could not handle and operate the machine and for that reason the defects occurred. It was only after the complainant was satisfied about the working of the machine that he took the delivery thereof. A 2 KW stabilizer was required for operating the machine to avoid power fluctuations but the complainant had installed a stabilizer of only 500 Watt. He did not use the recognized ink; as a result of which the various parts of the machine were damaged. Its Mechanic visited the premises of the complainant twice and changed those parts and when he demanded the cost of those spare parts, the complainant filed the present complaint with the intention to grab easy money. It is still ready to remove the defect, if any, at its office at Bathinda, where the same was supplied. The complaint has been filed in order to harass and humiliate it. It never indulged in deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing the learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum, which were called at the time of preliminary hearing of the appeal.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that from the averments of the complainant and the evidence produced by him, it stands proved that the quotation of new machine was issued by the opposite party and it was new machine, which First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 5 was so purchased by the complainant but a second hand machine was supplied; which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, the District Forum should have made an order for the refund of the price of the machine instead of giving direction to the opposite party to rectify the same. As a result of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant suffered injury and loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/- but only a meagre compensation of Rs.2,000/- was awarded, which is liable to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Besides that, as prayed in the grounds of appeal, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- from the opposite party for having adopted unfair trade practice and a special compensation on that ground, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
7. After having carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them, we find that there is no merit in these submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt, in para no.5 of the complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that he purchased a new machine from the opposite party and that second hand machine was supplied but from the evidence produced on the record, it stands proved that neither the quotation was given by the opposite party for a new machine nor such a new machine was so purchased by the complainant. The quotation was proved on the record as Ex.C-1 and it is mentioned therein that it was "Multifunctional Printer Copier (R/C) Model 2830". It was not mentioned in that quotation that it was a new machine nor the make thereof was given. Similarly in the bill Ex.C-2 the same First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 6 machine is mentioned and it is not mentioned therein that it was a new machine. Had it been a new machine, the name of the manufacturer must have been mentioned therein and such like machine always carry a warranty or guarantee. It was specifically pleaded by the opposite party in the written reply that it deals in only rebuilt machines and it was the rebuilt machine which was so sold to the complainant. That fact has been duly substantiated by the affidavit of Varinder Kumar, Ex.OPA. In these circumstances we are not inclined to hold that under the garb of new machine, a second hand machine was sold by the opposite party to the complainant.
8. The opposite party has not challenged the allegation of the complainant that the machine had developed the defect repeatedly, as it has pleaded in the written reply that its Mechanic had visited the premises of the complainant for removing the defect in the machine twice. However, at the same time, it has taken a plea that special training was required for running such a machine and the complainant was asked to take that training. He refused to take that training under the garb that he had already taken that training and that the defect occurred on account of non-operating of the machine properly. All those averments were proved by the affidavit of Varinder Kumar Ex.OPA. The complainant has nowhere alleged in his complaint that he was duly trained for operating this machine and had been operating it properly. In all these circumstances when it was a rebuilt machine and was set in order by the opposite party by sending his mechanic and by changing the parts thereof, there was no question of refunding the price of the machine to the complainant. First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 7 A correct order was passed by the District Forum by issuing a direction to the opposite party to rectify the defects within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. No evidence was led by the complainant as to how much loss or injury was caused to him on account of the defect in the machine. In the absence thereof it cannot be held that the compensation of Rs.2,000/- so awarded by the District Forum is on the lower side.
9. It is for the first time that the complainant by making a prayer in the appeal is asking for Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and special compensation of Rs.25,000/- on that ground. In view of the finding arrived at by us that the opposite party never agreed to nor sold a new machine to the complainant and that a rebuilt machine was old to him; there is no question of adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite party. He is, therefore, not entitled to any such additional compensation or special compensation.
10. There is no ground for admitting this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 26, 2014.
Bansal First Appeal No.105 of 2013. 8