Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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/-.

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 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.