Lotus Herbal Cosmetic Manufacturing Company, 155, DIC Industrial Area, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. through its Authorised Signatory and Plant Manager, Shri Rajev Thakkar.

… Complainant.
Versus
1. M/S Rezotek Systems, B-9, Ajinkyanagari, S. No.6/6, Karvenagar, Pune-411 052 through its Partner/Authorized Shri R.H. Rotithor.
2. Shri R.H. Rotithor, Partner/Autorised Representative M/S Rezotek Systems, B-9, Ajinkyanagari, S. No. 6/6, Karvenagar, Pune 411 052.

…Opposite Parties
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by M/S Lotus Herbal Cosmetic Manufacturing Company through its Authorized Signatory and Plan Manager, Shri Rajeev Thakkar, (hereinafter to referred as ‘complainant-company’) against the OPs, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant-company avers that it required complete plant and machinery for packing herbal and cosmetic products in tubes of particular dimensions and design, to which the OPs agreed to supply as per letter dated 27.07.2004 for Rs.8,00,000/- and for Rs.1,35,000/- respectively and the payment was agreed to be paid in instalments, as per agreement. The complainant-company further proceed to aver that the equipments of the machines were to be installed and commissioned at Baddi by June, 2005 and as such the machines were supplied and delivered at Baddi and thereafter these were commissioned.

It is, averred that the machines did not function, consequently, the complainant-company wrote a letter dated 03.06.2005 to the OPs brining to their knowledge the fact of non-functioning of the machines. Though, the OPs promised to rectify the defects, yet, till date nothing has been done in this behalf, and consequently as per letter dated 31.10.2005, the OPs were requested to take back the machine and refund the cost thereof, which request has also gone unheeded. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs filed detailed reply to the complaint. The OPs have not denied the fact of supplying the machine to the complainant. It is contended by them that the complainant-company did not adhere the guidelines and instructions and was mishandling the machine thereby shifting the blame about non-functioning of the machine on one count or other upon them. It is contended that the complainant-company confirmed the operation of the machine on 08.08.2005 and thereafter has continuously used the machine and it is only after about a month, i.e. 04.09.2005 that the defect about non-functioning of the machine was reported. It is further contended that the complainant is carrying business of manufacturing herbal and cosmetic products for commercial activities.

It is denied that the machine supplied to the complainant was having inherent manufacturing defects, rather the defects in the machine erupted due to mishandling of the same by the technician engaged by the complainant-company to operate it. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice by supplying defective machine to the complainant-company.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The apparatus purchased by the complainant from the OPs has not been demonstrated to have been secured by a warranty. In the absence of any warranty being supplied by the OPs to the complainant qua the machinery at the time it was purchased by the complainant from the OPs, naturally, their cannot be any breach of warranty on whose breach, the, complainant can come forth and contend that he has a lawful claim against the OPs and hence, he is, entitled to the relief claimed against the OPs.

His having failed at the time of purchase of the machinery from the OPs, to, secure a warranty of the product purchased by him, from, the OPs, he, has abandoned the rule of due care and caution. Obviously, for not seeking a warranty from the OPs, for, the goods purchased by him from it, he, has breached the principle of caveat emptor. Resultantly, he, has, to, suffer for his having breached the aforesaid principle, in as much, as, in his not securing a warranty of the goods purchased by him from the OPs.

6. As a sequel of the above, we disallow the relief, as claimed by the complainant and the complaint is ordered to be rejected,