The Photogenic Colour Lab is a firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The complainant purchased a Digital Photo Print called “Spectra Digital Photo Station 1218” from the opposite parties in pursuance of the advertisement, representation, promise and inducement made by the opposite parties, for a sum of Rs.90,00 and the opposite parties supplied three wooden cases consisting of Module, Printer and Laminator, vide waybill B.P.No.050498 dated 28/5/2003 of A.B.T. Parcel Services and the complainant took the delivery of the same at Kunnamkulam. The opposite party had made an advertisement in a Malayalam Magazine by name “Photo Wide” regarding the said machine stating that, in the said machine, instead of catridges, they are using replaceable ink bottles which are more economical and profitable and induced by the advertisement and representation, the complainant was persuaded to purchase the said machine and accordingly purchased the said machine.

The technical personnel of the opposite parties installed the same at the complainant’s colour lab at Kunnamkulam on 6/6/2003 and 7/6/2003. At the time of installation itself, the Digital Photo Station 1218 (hereafter referred to as photo station) worked satisfactorily only for two hours. After that, the photo station did not work properly and the complainant contacted the 2nd respondent several times over telephone and complained about problems faced while the photo station was working. The ink supply in the printer was not proper and broken lines appeared while the ink is sprayed. There were also complaints while the nozzle check was done. Even after the cleaning of the head as suggested by the technical personnel of the opposite parties the printer did not work properly. In addition to that, the laminator was also not working properly and lines were found when the photo prints were laminated. When the complainant made repeated complaints to opposite parties, they sent some of their technical personnel to attend the work and they inspected the photo station on 28/6/2003, 21/7/2003 and also on 19/8/2003. On all those occasions, though the technicians sent by the opposite parties worked hard, they could not rectify the defects and their whole efforts turned into an exercise in futility. In short the complainant could not use the machine and get the desired result as advertised, promised and represented by the opposite parties and in spite of huge investment, the machine did not work or serve the purpose for which it was installed, ever for a single moment and needless to say it has resulted in huge economic loss to the complainant. So Lawyer notice was sent. Reply is also there stating untenable contentions. But no remedy. Hence this complaint.

The counter of the respondents in brief is as given below:
2. The subject matter of the complaint is a pure commercial transaction and does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Act, 1986. Only on seeing and being satisfied with the performance of the machinery the complainant purchased the same from the respondent. There is no inducement or promise. The machine was promptly delivered and installed at the petitioner’s premises. The value for the same have been received by the respondents. As per the invoice Chennai Court only has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction. It is false that the photo station did not work properly and that the complainant called the opposite party several times for rectification of the problems. On 6/6/03 and 7/6/03, the machine was installed successfully and the results of the printer and lamination was good and the customer viz. the complainant was satisfied with the performance, as evident by the signature of the complainant acknowledging the satisfaction of performance of the machine in the work report of the 1st opposite party dated 6/6/03 and 7/6/03. Excepting two specific complaints on 28/6/03 and 19/8/03 where the respondents personally came over to the complainant’s premises to attend minor faults, there was no other complaint. On account of the complainant’s own acts and omissions, the complainant is unable to procure business from and out of the installed machine. Hence dismiss.

3. The points for consideration are:
1)Is the complaint maintainable ?
2)If so, is there any deficiency in service ?
3)Other reliefs and costs ?

4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P11 and Ext. C1.

5. Points : The complaint is filed to get refund of the price of the defective product from the respondents. The case in brief is that the complainant had purchased a Digital Photo Print called “Spectra Digital Photo Station 1218” from the respondents for an amount of Rs.90,000/- and the respondents supplied the three wooden cases containing Module, Printer and Laminator by bill dated 28/5/08 through parcel service and the complainant had taken delivery at Kunnamkulam. The technicians of the respondents installed the same and at the time of installation itself the machine worked satisfactorily only for two hours. After that also the machine did not work properly and the personnel of the respondents repaired it many times and the defects were not cured and it was not worked properly as advertised till date. So this complaint for refund of the price and compensation.

6. In the counter the respondents stated that it is false statement of the complainant that the machine did not work properly and the complainant called the respondents several times for rectification of the problems. The machine was installed successfully and the complainant was satisfied with the performance. They also contended that the complainant is unable to procure business only because of his own commissions and omissions.

7. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. So that question is to be decided first. According to the respondents the transaction between the parties is a commercial one and the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. According to them the machinery sold to the complainant is put to commercial use and the complainant makes profit out of the machine purchased by producing prints for their customers for consideration is for commercial purposes and not maintainable. The respondents also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the complainant. The aspect of commercial nature can be discussed first. According to the respondents since the machinery is put to commercial usage the complainant is not a consumer. But this view of the respondents is not correct. It is true that for commercial purposes the machine is using. But the complaint is filed to get back the cost paid to a defective product. So the question is regarding the defectiveness of a product and the service deficiency of the respondents are to be decided. This is purely a matter comes under the Consumer Protection Act and Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and maintainable before the Forum.

8. The next point is regarding the territorial jurisdiction. According to the respondents the Opposite Parties are permanently carrying on business at Chennai and the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction. Since the machine was delivered through parcel service and installed by their men at Kunnamkulam the cause of action partly arose here and the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

9. The main relief sought is the return of the cost paid for the defective product and taken back the same. According to the complainant from the very beginning itself it was in defect and did not work properly. In the counter itself the respondents admitted that on 28/6/03 and 19/8/03 the Opposite Parties personally came over to the complainant’s premise to attend minor faults. The date of 28/6/03 was just after one month of the delivery of the machine. So the defects are admitted by the respondents to some extent. Exhibit C1 is the report of expert shows that the machine was defective. He stated that Film Laminator working is not proper and also stated that there was improper working of the Printer. It is also reported that the reservoir system is not properly fitted with the machine. So as per Exhibit C1 the machine was defective and not working properly. Exhibit C1 establishes the case of complainant and he is entitled to get back the entire cost paid to the respondents. In the version itself the respondents admitted the minor defects to the machine with the very beginning. There are letters showing the repair done and the way of usage etc. Exhibit P7 is the letter showing the defect to Printer and Exhibit P5 is the letter showing the instruction for lift of ink reservoir. These affirm the defect to the machine. Exhibit C1 report is the best evidence to affirm the case of complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get back the actual cost.

10. In the result complaint stands allowed and the respondents are directed to return the complainant Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) and take back the machinery. It is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as litigation expenses. Comply the order within one month.