Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/130/2023

M/S APSOM INFOTEX LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DIGITAL VISION - Opp.Party(s)

SATYAM TANDON

08 Sep 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	130 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	12.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	08.09.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Apsom Infotex Limited, E-B Mahavir Complex, Dapoda via Village near Mankoil Highway, Bhinwandi, Distt. Thane, Maharashtra 421302, Phawe-II, New Delhi – 110020.

….Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

M/s Digital Vision (through Maninder Singh, Prop.), SCO No.81, Sector 38C, Chandigarh.

 

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Maninder Singh, Proprietor for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    This appeal has been filed by the opposite party – M/s Apsom Infotex Limited (appellant herein) against order dated 10.02.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint No.244 of 2021 filed by the complainant – Digital Vision (respondent herein) has been allowed against the appellant by directing it to refund Rs.3,54,000/- to the respondent with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. The order has been directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, the awarded amount was to attract penal interest @12% p.a. besides payment of litigation costs.

2]             Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission reads thus:-

“1.     Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Roland Versa Studio BT-12 from Apsom Infotex Ltd. from OP vide invoice Annexure-1 for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- which was installed on 14.8.2019. It is stated that the printer is a garment printer which prints cotton T-Shirts, Tote Bags and cushion coverts etc. It is alleged that the  prints of the said printer started fading in 3 to 4 washes by the customer.  The complainant lodged complaint with OP vide email Annexure-6, but the OP failed to resolve the problem of the product in question despite repeated requests. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.      The Opposite Party in its reply stated that there is no inherent defect in the printer in question. It is averred that the OP vide email Annexure C suggested the complainant to change the printing mode in the Roland B12 printer to PRO2 ode which means 30Sec pre-press, 30Sec after heart and 2min30Sec after press for effecting printing and as a solution to the blurring of the printed ink on the textiles but the complainant did not follow the instructions.  It is averred that the blurring of the printer ink on the textiles are attributable to the method of washing and type of detergent being used with the printed textile while washing. Further the blurring of printed ink on the textiles was tested by the OP by washing them under different mode and as a result the favourable outcomes came and the same can be inferred mail dated 13.1.2020 by the OP. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.”

3]     After hearing the contesting parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission allowed the complaint against the appellant, as stated above.

4]      The order of the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the impugned order lacks proper foundation and justification and based solely on conjectures and surmises. It has further been stated that the District Commission did not appreciate that the printing machinery is being used by the respondent for commercial purpose and thus, the respondent does not qualify as a consumer under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It has further been stated that the District Commission also failed to appreciate that there is no manufacturing defect in the printer. It has further been stated that the District Commission manifestly erred in not      considering that the respondent is guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. It has further been stated that the District Commission also did not appreciate that the respondent has breached the terms of warranty by using a third party heating unit, which is not compatible with the subject printer and as such, the liability of the appellant is limited to the warranty terms and cannot be extended to claim outside its scope. It has further been submitted that in Compaq Computers (I) Ltd. v. Ashley Shane, Law Finder Doc Id 591009, it was held that “It is common knowledge if any system is tampered with by third parties, without reference to the suppliers during the warranty period, the supplier or manufacturer would be absolved.” Further reliance has been placed on Punjab Tractors Ltd. V. Vir Pratap, (1997) II CPJ 81 (NC), wherein it was held that when the complaint of the complainant was duly and promptly attended to by the opposite party and no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kumar Awadhiya, (1993) III CPJ 410 (NC), it has been submitted that the liability of the appellant strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty granted to the buyer by it and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the respective warranty. Lastly prayer for setting aside the impugned order has been made by the appellant.

5]      On the other hand, it has been submitted by Sh. Maninder Singh, Proprietor on behalf of the respondent that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence on record. He has further submitted that he purchased the printer in question for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by printing T-Shirts, Tote Bags and cushion Covers etc. and not for any commercial activity. He has further submitted that non use of third-party heater was not the condition precedent for using the said printer. He further submitted that despite its repair, the problem in the printer could not be resolved by the appellant and thus, the District Commission rightly ordered for refund of its price along-with interest, compensation and litigation costs.  Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6]      It may be stated here that there is a delay of mere 76 days days in filing the appeal for condonation whereof, the appellant has moved a miscellaneous application No.470 of 2023. However, as per report of office of this Commission, there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated in the application that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 was applied on 10.03.2023 and the same was received on 13.03.2023. It has further been stated that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to bonafide reasons. It has further been stated that the filing was completed on 09.05.2023 but due to human error, the same was not submitted in time. It has further been stated that the advance copy was sent to the respondent vide mail dated 08.05.2023. It has further been stated that the appellant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned and the appeal is not heard on merits.

7]                In view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellants have rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. Moreover, the contents of the application have been supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Mandal, authorized representative of the appellant. Therefore, miscellaneous application bearing No.470 of 2023 is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

8]      After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and the Proprietor appearing on behalf of the respondent and going through the documentary evidence/material available on record, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The District Commission in its order has rightly observed that the respondent spent a huge amount of Rs.3,54,000/- from his hard earned money for the purchase of the printer in question for earning his livelihood by printing T-Shirts, Tote Bags and cushion Covers etc. The respondent in the written arguments filed before the District Commission has specifically stated that he is running a business of souvenir gift shop to earn his livelihood to feed his family of five i.e. he himself, his wife, two children, aged 19 years & 16 years and his mother aged 78 years. Not only this, in the rejoinder, he submitted that the printer, he had purchased from the appellant was not fit for self use or for commercial purpose. It has further been stated in the rejoinder that the respondent had purchased the product for livelihood and not for sale purpose. To say so, the respondent relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Dr. Vijai Prakash Goyal Vs. The Network Limited, IV (2005) CPJ 206 NC and Super Computer Centre vs Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd.,         3 (2006) CPJ 256 NC. In our considered opinion also, the respondent is very much a consumer qua the appellant as he purchased the printer in question for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and not for any commercial activity. Thus, the respondent qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The contention raised by the appellant in this regard stands rejected.

9]                As regards the contention of the appellant that the respondent is guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, it may be stated here that from bare perusal of the record, we do not find any suppression of truth on the part of the respondent, which is suggestive of falsehood. Therefore, this contention of the appellant also stands rejected.

10]              As regards the next contention of the appellant that the District Commission did not appreciate that the respondent has breached the terms of warranty by using a third party heating unit, which is not compatible with the subject printer and as such, the liability of the appellant is limited to the warranty terms and cannot be extended to claim outside its scope, it may be stated here that during the course of arguments, when a query was put to the counsel for the appellant that is there any term or condition or any other pre-requisite condition in the user manual or in the warranty terms for using the said printer, which bars using of third party heater, he answered in the negative. In our concerted view, when there is no such term or condition that the respondent cannot use third-party heater for running the printer, the contention raised by the appellant in this regard has no legs to stand and is thus also rejected. Thus, the judgments cited are of no help to the appellant. Before the District Commission, it has established on record that the printer in question could not yield the promised result as a result whereof, the respondent lodged complaint with the appellant vide various communications and follow ups as was evident from Annexure C-6 to C-14 but the engineer of the appellant failed to fix the defect, which compelled the respondent to file the consumer complaint. Per record, the appellant miserably failed to set right the problem in the printer in question, which the respondent has purchased after spending huge amount, which certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  Thus, in our considered view, the District Commission rightly allowed the complaint and ordered refund of the cost of the printer along-with interest besides awarding compensation and litigation costs. Therefore, the order of the District Commission, being just and legal, is liable to be upheld and the appeal deserves dismissal.

11]              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

12]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

13]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

08.09.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad