SUPER ENGINEERING CORPN HUF Vs. SANJAY VINAYAK PANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to appeal are that the present respondent No.1, Sanjay Vinayak Pant, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, New Bombay against the present respondent No. 2, Chetan Machinery & Paper Mart, (for short the Paper Mart), who was Respondent No. 1 in the original complaint and the appellant Super Engineering Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). According to the Complaint, (Translation of which is at page 27 of the paper-book), the Complainant had placed an order on 31st January, 1989 for a Suepr Offset Printing Machine with the Paper Mart, who was dealer of the manufacturer i.e. appellant Corporation for which machine the Corporation had earlier sent a proforma invoice quotation dated 27th December, 19 89 in the name of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (for short MSFC) through their dealer, Paper Mart : Full amount of the Printing Machine was to be deposited in advance and it was so deposited with the Paper Mart, partly by the claimant and rest by MSFC. The Printing Machine was supplied to the Complainant on 20th February, 1990 by the dealer. The mechanic of the manufacturer arrived on 19th March, 1990 and fitted the machine, but it did not work properly. One Mr. Agarawal, owner himself came and tried the machine but it did not start and he took away one part known as damping unit with him for repairs to Bombay on 26th March, 1990. On 2nd April, 1990 the mechanic brought a new 'damping unit' and fixed it in the machine but still it did not work. The mechanic went back on 6th April, 1990 and came back on 9th April, 1990 and again tried to start the machine, but on the paper scum was coming. The mechanic returned to Bombay and did not come again. The Complainant gave notices to the dealer as well as to the manufacturer. The MSFC also asked the manufacturer to repair the machine. However, till the date of filing of the complaint, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer responded. Thus since installation the machine did not work. It is further the case of the complainant that instead of Super Offset Printing Machine, he was supplied Offset Printing Machine, Stallion model. The complainant claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) Version dated 27th July, 1990 of the manufacturer i.e. Corporation was received by the State Commission by post and thereafter they did not appear before the Commission. The manufacturer denied having sold any machinery to the Complainant. According to them they supplied the machine to the Paper Mart.

(3.) The Paper Mart contested the complaint petition and pleaded that the machinery was supplied by the manufacturer to the Complainant through them as dealer. According to them they were not responsible for any deficiency in the machinery supplied to the complainant. They further alleged that they had to recover some amounts from the claimant and in that respect some litigation was going on.