1992 3 CPJ 302 ; 1993 2 CPR 235
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Shri M.G. Gavai, Member; Smt. Ellen Dharkar, Member
DR. S.M. SETHNA—Complainant
versus
MR. ANIL CHOKSHI & ANOTHER—O.P.
Complaint Case No. 284/1991—Decided on 31.10.1992
Act Referred :CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.12, S.17
(A) The case involves the application of the Consumer Protection Act, specifically regarding the adjudication of complaints related to defective goods. Under Section 12 and Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission is empowered to hear complaints and provide relief to consumers who have suffered due to deficiency in service or the supply of defective products. In this instance, the statutory framework was utilized to address a claim where a consumer purchased high-end medical processing equipment that was found to be an older, defective model rather than the current model ordered, thereby necessitating a directive for replacement and reimbursement of associated import costs.
(B) The core legal principles involve the right of a consumer to receive goods that match the description and quality of the order, and the procedural validity of ex-parte proceedings when an opposite party fails to respond to statutory notices issued under the Act.
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased an automatic processor for X-ray and sonography films. Despite ordering a new model, the machine delivered was found to have been inspected in 1987, indicating it was an old unit. Upon installation, the machine was found to be defective and not in proper working order. The complainant had also incurred significant expenses toward service charges and custom duties for the import of the machine. Despite multiple notices, the opposite party failed to appear before the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the opposite party did not controvert the allegations despite being served notice, the complainant's assertions were accepted as correct. The court observed that the machine delivered was indeed an old and defective unit. While the claim for a high amount of compensation was not fully substantiated by evidence, the actual financial losses incurred via custom duties and service charges were verifiable and refundable.
Issues:
Whether the delivery of an old, defective machine instead of the ordered new model constitutes a deficiency in service/defect in goods, and whether the complainant is entitled to replacement and reimbursement of import expenses.
Ratio Decidendi:
When a seller delivers a product that is outdated and defective contrary to the terms of the order, and fails to contest the claim in a legal proceeding, the consumer is entitled to a replacement of the product with the correct model and reimbursement of the direct financial losses incurred in acquiring the defective product.
Result:
Complaint allowed. The opposite party was directed to replace the defective machine with the correct new model, refund Rs. 86,990 towards service charges and custom duties, and pay Rs. 1,000 as costs.
(A) The case involves the application of the Consumer Protection Act, specifically regarding the adjudication of complaints related to defective goods. Under Section 12 and Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission is empowered to hear complaints and provide relief to consumers who have suffered due to deficiency in service or the supply of defective products. In this instance, the statutory framework was utilized to address a claim where a consumer purchased high-end medical processing equipment that was found to be an older, defective model rather than the current model ordered, thereby necessitating a directive for replacement and reimbursement of associated import costs.
(B) The core legal principles involve the right of a consumer to receive goods that match the description and quality of the order, and the procedural validity of ex-parte proceedings when an opposite party fails to respond to statutory notices issued under the Act.
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased an automatic processor for X-ray and sonography films. Despite ordering a new model, the machine delivered was found to have been inspected in 1987, indicating it was an old unit. Upon installation, the machine was found to be defective and not in proper working order. The complainant had also incurred significant expenses toward service charges and custom duties for the import of the machine. Despite multiple notices, the opposite party failed to appear before the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the opposite party did not controvert the allegations despite being served notice, the complainant's assertions were accepted as correct. The court observed that the machine delivered was indeed an old and defective unit. While the claim for a high amount of compensation was not fully substantiated by evidence, the actual financial losses incurred via custom duties and service charges were verifiable and refundable.
Issues:
Whether the delivery of an old, defective machine instead of the ordered new model constitutes a deficiency in service/defect in goods, and whether the complainant is entitled to replacement and reimbursement of import expenses.
Ratio Decidendi:
When a seller delivers a product that is outdated and defective contrary to the terms of the order, and fails to contest the claim in a legal proceeding, the consumer is entitled to a replacement of the product with the correct model and reimbursement of the direct financial losses incurred in acquiring the defective product.
Result:
Complaint allowed. The opposite party was directed to replace the defective machine with the correct new model, refund Rs. 86,990 towards service charges and custom duties, and pay Rs. 1,000 as costs.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant: In Person.
ORDER
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President— In this complaint, the complainant alleged that a Konica Automatic Processor Model QX-40 for processing X-ray and sonography films was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective.
2. The complainant alleged that on 4.10.1990 the O.P. 1 sent a proforma invoice for Rs. 44,000/- dated 1.10.90 from Konica Corporation, Tokyo Japan vide Exhibit B-I and B-II. On 31.12.90, the opposite party informed the complainant that the machine has been shipped for delivery. On 15.1.91; the Opposite Party (O.P.) No. 1 again informed the complainant to extend the date for delivery as goods were not in stock for Indian Market and they would produce the machine in March, 1991. The relevant X-Ray is DID-II. The complainant had also paid Rs. 4,000/- as service charges for the import of the said machine on 24.4.91 vide Ex. E. The complainant cleared the custom duties on 21.5.91 by paying Rs. 82,590/- vide Ex. ’F’. When Carton was opened, the complainant found that the machine was inspected on November, 1987 indicating that it was an old machine. After installation on 29.5.91 by O.P. 1, the machine was found defective and not in proper working order. It was accordingly informed to the opposite party by letter dated 9.6.91, followed the reminder on 16.7.91 vide Ex.I and I-a. The complainant, therefore, claimed replacement of the machine by 1991 Model suited to Indian conditions and also expenses incurred by the complainant in transporting the said machine.
3. Notice u/Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was issued to the Opposite Party dated 29.1.1992 with a copy of the complaint As there was no response another notice u/Sec. 13 was sent to the Opposite Party by hand delivery which O.P. 1 received on 6.3.1992. The acknowledgment of the Opposite Party of having received the said notice is on record at Ex-A. There is seal of Choksi Brothers Ltd. having initial and the date of having received the said notice. It was clearly stated in the said notice that the complaint is fixed on 6.4.92 before the State Commission for hearing.
4. On 6.4.92 complainant was present in person and opposite party remained absent. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party.
5. In support of his allegation, the complainant filed his affidavit dated 7.4.92 verifying the allegations made in the complaint. Since the Opposite Party did not controvert the allegations in the complaint despite the notice, we accept the allegations of the complainant as correct.
6. The complainant has claimed the replacement of the said machine with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As regards the compensation amount is concerned we find that the complainant was put to inconvenience for want of machine but there is no material on record to substantiate the claim of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, under these circumstances, we accept the loss of complainant for Rs. 36,990/- (the expenses of Rs. 4,400/- towards payment of service charges and Rs. 82,590/- for paying custom duties.) Hence, we pass the following order : —
ORDER
7. The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party 1 is directed to replace the present Konica Automatic Processor machine bearing No. 13530059 with the new machine Model QX-40 which was ordered by the complainant. After the receipt of the new machine, the complainant shall return the old machine to the O.P.I. The expenses required for service charges and custom duties will be borne by the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 86,990/towards the service charges and custom duties paid by him for the old existing machine with the complainant. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
Complaint allowed with costs.
–