State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mehta Cad Chem System Pvt. Ltd vs Sucess Engravers on 12 December, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/12/707
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 26/04/2012 in Case No. 495/2010 of District Pune)
1. MEHTA CAD CHEM SYSTEM PVT. LTD.
4 & 5 SECOND FLOOR, SUMEL COMPLEX, SARKHEJ-GANDHINAGAR ROAD,
AHMEDABAD 380059, GUJARAT.
2. MEHTA CAD CHEM SYSTEM PVT.LTD.
G-23, SUPER MALL, S. N. 69, SALUNKE VIHAR, VANWADI,
PUNE 411048.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SUCESS ENGRAVERS
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,
SHRI KEDAR KANITKAR, UNIT 11 & 12, KONARK
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B/H CDSS, ERANDAVANE, PUNE 411038.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
PRESENT:
Mr.P R HEGDE , Advocate for the Appellant Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate ......for the Respondent ORAL ORDER Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase-Honble President Both the parties have consented to dispose of the appeal finally at the stage of admission itself. Heard both the Ld.advocates for the parties.
Order passed by the District Forum Pune in consumer complaint no.495/2010 on 26/04/2012 has been challenged by the original opponent nos.1&2. By this order opponents/appellants are directed to pay an amount of `8 lakhs with an interest @ 9% p.a. from 02/07/2010 till the amount is paid. Further, it is directed that the amount of `10,000/- be paid by way of compensation and `1000/- by way of costs. Factual matrix which are not in dispute are as follows:-
Opponents are agents of selling Plasma machine, which is imported from U.S. Said machine was purchased for an amount of `8 lakhs by the complainant by raising a loan from the Union Bank. In respect of payment of `8 lakhs is concerned, there is no dispute. Dispute is in respect of warning, which was stated on the packing of the machine. Said warning was/is, Warning-This product, when used for welding or cutting, produces fumes or gases which contain chemicals known to the state California to cause birth defects and, in some cases cancer. Grievance of the complainant was/is that when he inspected the said machine in the exhibition which was displayed at Ahmedabad, this information was not given to the complainant or contained in the brochure which was supplied.
Not only that, but while demo was given this was also not disclosed by the representatives of the opponent at Ahmedabad and, thus, complainant was made to believe that the plasma machine to be used for engraving is a safe machine. He was under impression that there will not be health hazards as a result of use of the said machine. He only came to know that machine is having health hazards causing of the birth defects and, in some cases cancer, when he came across the warning at the time of delivery and installation of the machine, supra. Thereafter, immediately he sealed the machine in the presence of engineers deputed by the opponent and requested them to take the machine back. Since that request was not acceded, consumer complaint is filed.
This complaint has been allowed by the District Forum as stated above. What we find decision given by the District Forum does not require interference at the hands of the State Commission. Consumer is having right to know quality and the hazards involved in the unit of the machine. That is his right recognized under the Act. Such an information cannot be suppressed from the consumer prior to purchase. In the present matter it is not in dispute that any time prior to purchase, opponent disclosed these hazards as reflected in the warning noticed by the complainant. Thus, it is a case of complete suppression of material facts viz. defects in the said machine which are likely to create health hazards to a person using the said machine and, therefore, order which has been passed by the District Forum directing to take the machine back and pay the amount is proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the said case.
We do not find substance in the appeal. Appeal is rejected in limine.
Pronounced on 12th December, 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member Ms.