State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raibat Basu vs Vee Kay Enterprises on 10 September, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 10.09.2008 Complaint Case No.2008/187 Sh. Raibat Basu Complainant Prop. M/s. Aduex Display Services through Mr. S.K. Yadav Regd. Office R-15, Hemraj Shopping advocate, Centre, Rita Block, Shakarpur, Delhi. Versus M/s. Vee Kay Enterprises Opposite Party Reg. Office 252, Shahpur Jat, Opp. Panchsheel Park, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. Complaint is taken at the admission stage.
2. The complainant purchased a Digital Solvent Printer ECCO F-12500 from the OP against the Invoice No.239 dated 30.08.2007 for a sum of Rs.13,69,900/- and installed by the technical staff of the OP. From 01st week of September 2007, the machine could not function properly and developed defects as lines on the output print, it did not print FLEX at all and also digital print of 8 length and subsequently great frustration and wastage of time, Raw material including ink and media. It is informed by the technical staff of the OP that the machine would not be able to print on FLEX but would print perfectly on Vinyl. The complaint wrote various letters to the OP but to no effects. The complainant through this complaint has sought refund of sum of Rs.16,47,943/- as the value of the printer with interest @18% p.a. besides payment of Rs.9,16,6515 towards the expenses incurred on for the work done as well as Rs.2,97,682/- being loss of raw material besides the amount of recruitment of manpower and business loss.
3. Where there is no term of the contract as to the liability of the OP to pay interest at a particular rate, the interest does not form component of compensation as the question as to whether the complainant is entitled for interest or not and if so at what rate and for what period, is always subject of adjudication.
4. There are no basis nor any break up of damages have been provided by the complainant as to his claim of Rs.2,97,682/- and Rs.9,16,515/-.
6. After having accorded careful consideration to the allegation of the complainant we find even if the allegations are assumed to be corrected the amount of compensation would not exceed Rs.20 lacs and has been exaggerated solely with a view to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. In the result the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
7. However in order to avoid inconvenience to the complainant by returning the complaint to be filed before the District Forum we are transferring this complaint to the District Forum for consideration
7. The Complainant shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 17.10.2008.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 10th day of September 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri