National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Negi Sign Systems And Supplies Co. vs Rijulize Jacob on 7 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2677 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 30/04/2015 in Appeal No. 11/2014 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. NEGI SIGN SYSTEMS AND SUPPLIES CO. 301, 3RD FLOOR, SHIVAM CHAMBERS, NEXT TO SAHARA, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON(W) MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RIJULIZE JACOB W/O THOMAS K. PERANICKAL, PERANICKAL HOUSE, (P.O)-ADOOR,(PROPRIETRIX, ADOOR BUSINESS CENTER, (ABC), POTHERICAN BUILDING, KSRTC JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Rawat, Advocate For the Respondent : Counsel for the Respondent
Dated : 07 Jan 2016 ORDER
The complainant/respondent purchased a printer from the petitioner on 03.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- along with Rs.21,000/- for the ancillary parts of the printer. The printer was installed on 18.12.2010. The case of the complainant is that the machine was defective right from the date it was installed and the defect in the machine was immediately brought to the notice of the petitioner, which assured to rectify the defect within a few days. On 21.05.2011, the Service Engineer of the petitioner inspected the aforesaid printer and found that its yellow head had been blocked. He cleared the yellow head nozzles and sum of Rs.25,000/- was charged from the complainant for this purpose since the replacement of the head does not form part of the warranty accompanying the printer. According to the complainant, even after replacement of the head at the cost of Rs.25,000/-, the machine did not work properly and a complaint in this regard was made to the petitioner which deputed a technician to inspect and service the machine on 27.06.2011. The grievance of the complainant is that even after visit of the technician on 27.06.2011 the machine did not function properly. It was again inspected by a service engineer of the petitioner on 23.08.2011 when blockage of yellow head was reported. The technician of the petitioner again visited the premises of the complainant on 19.11.2011 and cleaned the head of the machine. The case of the complainant is that even after service on 19.11.2011, the machine did not function properly. He therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking refund of the price paid by him for purchasing the machine along with compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that machine supplied by them was of a very high quality but the head of the machine got clogged because the same was kept idle for long without printing being undertaken on it and in the absence of adequate maintenance. It also pointed out in the reply that the complainant did not purchase any material such as ink after installing the machine which clearly shows that it had not operated there, which had resulted in clogging the head of the printer.
3. The District Forum appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the printer purchased by the complainant. The report of the Local Commission to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
" I repaired tha machine kept aside for about one year as idle able to take print from it. But the print was not good. It is due to non-function of the print head. The nozzle status of the print head is attached with this report. In this 30% of the nozzle only is printed.
The following parts should be replaced for the proper functioning of the machine Mutob VB 1604.
1. Print Head- 1No.
2. Damper - 8 No.
3. Cap Top- 1No.
4. Purging Sponge- 1 No. The manufacturing defects mentioned in the application is not find out in the present situation. To find out the manufacturing defect it is necessary to examine the report and test print at the time of installation and the prints taken after that. Nobody has given any materials for this.
Nobody has instructed to assess anything more at this place."
4. It is thus evident that the machine could be made functional on replacement of one Printer Head, 8 Damper, one Cap Top and one Purging Sponge. The complainant did not produce any material before the Local Commissioner to justify his allegation that the machine suffered from a manufacturing defect.
5. In view of the report of the Local Commissioner, the District Forum directed the petitioner to rectify the defects pointed out in the report of the Local Commission without any service charges/labours from the complainant.
6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.04.2015, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum by directing the petitioner to refund the price of the machine and its accessories amounting to Rs.10,71,000/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/opposite party is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
7. The onus was upon the complainant to prove that the machine/printer purchased by him suffered from a manufacturing defect. No technical evidence was produced by him to prove any such defect in the machine. He could not establish any manufacturing defect in the machine even before the Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum. If only a part of the printer was defective, the complainant was entitled to replacement of that part, and not to the refund of the price of the machine. Therefore the District Forum in my view was absolutely justified in directing only the replacement of the parts identified by the Local Commission at the cost of the petitioner. No justification for refunding the price of the machine to the complainant is made out in the absence of proof of any manufacturing defect in the said machine.
8. Even otherwise, the machine has been in possession of the complainant for more than five years. It is not known whether the complainant has actually been using this machine or not. But they will hardly be any justification to refund the purchase price after the machine has been in possession of the purchaser for more than five years and he has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the machine.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored.
10. It transpired during the course of hearing that the complainant was entitled to supply of ink for one year @ Rs.1000 per liter. Therefore I direct the petitioner to supply 60 Liters of printing ink to the complainant @ Rs.1000 per liter, within one month from the complainant depositing a sum of Rs.60,000/- with it. The said amount will be deposited within one month. The revision petition stands disposed of.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER