Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals are directed against the final Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission') in First Appeal No. 194 of 2011 and First Appeal No. 222 of 2011, whereby the National Commission, by a common order, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants and allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents.
(3.) Brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows: In the year 2004, the appellants being unemployed graduates decided to start a business of photography in partnership for self-employment and for their livelihood, for which they needed an advanced photo processing, developing and printing machine. The appellants contacted respondent No. 2 and enquired about the salient features and performance of "Agfa Minilab D-Lab. 1 Allrounder" machine. Respondent no. 3 was the then Managing Director and respondent No. 4 was the then General Manager, Marketing and Sales Consumer Imaging Division, Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. Both of them narrated several special features of the machine and apprised that the machine delivers excellent quality with negative and the digital technology with high productivity; they also assured that it is reliable open system supported by Agfa's unsurpassed service and supported network and fully equipped. They also proposed several schemes like prompt service and free supply of paper and chemicals etc. They suggested the purchase of the machine and sent a proposal by way of quotation. Being impressed by the advice and suggestion of the respondents, the appellants borrowed a loan from the Union Bank of India on 12.07.2004 and placed an order for the purchase of the said machine for which the appellants paid a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- towards the cost of the machine and other collateral charges in advance. It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos. 1 to 4, despite having the knowledge that the machine which contains a pre-loaded software does not work properly and is unworthy of acceptance, had unfairly and carelessly sold the machine to the appellants on 05.08.2004 for their financial gain, causing financial loss to the appellants. It did not give satisfactory performance up to the marked standard, as narrated and assured by the respondents. Various technical, mechanical and software problems were detected in the machine. As per the contract, the machine was under warranty for one year commencing from 05.08.2004. Since the performance of the machine was not up to the marked standard and as the appellants found number of defects in the product, such as existence of grains in the print etc., they made complaints to the respondents for the removal of defects; but even after several visits by the engineers of Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., as well as the engineers of the developer and designer mother company, the machine was never made to run to its marked standard. Ultimately, the engineers of the company vide their report dated 30.11.2004 admitted that the pre-loaded software in the machine was still under research and development and that the problems would be resolved by the new software which was expected to be released in January, 2005. Thereafter also, the appellants repeatedly requested respondent No. 1 for the replacement of machine with another piece of machine, but the respondents unfairly did not pay heed to the request of the appellants. Though the warranty had expired on 05.08.2005 after a period of one year, the defects in the machine could not be cured.;