GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG CO LTD Vs. U P SACHIV RAJYA VITTA AYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act') against the order dated 6.3.1998 passed in Case No.397/ 95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The State Finance Commission constituted under Clause (1) of Article 243-1 of the Constitution of India read with Clause 3 of the M. P. Rajya Vitta Ayog Adhiniyam, 1994 (No.3 of 1994) for review the financial position of the Panchayats and the Municipalities and to make the recommendations to the Governor as to the matters enumerated in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Notification No.32-IV-B-FCC-95 published in M. P. Rajpatra (Extraordinary) dated 25.2.1995. The term of the office was for a period of three years, which was extended upto31.12.1998. The Commission purchased an electronic bilingual typewriter No.46705 on 30.9.1994 for Rs.33,440/- with a warrantee for a period of one year expiring on 30.9.1995. The typewriter started giving trouble in its smooth working. The complainant alleged that several complaints on telephone were made, but the authorised dealer of the opposite party did not pay any heed. Therefore, the complaints were sent in writing on 1.3.1995, 25.8.1995 and 12.9.1995 about the inherent manufacturing defects in respect of failure of memory and printing process, symboling and setting disturbance at the time of changing the wheel. The complaints were attended by the mechanic of the appellant on 6.3.1995, 4.9.1995 and 15.9.1995. At the first occasion failure of the working of the machine was due to loose connections which were rectified. At the second and third, the power modules were changed. Inspite of this the machine d id not work smoothly and properly. The complainant made a demand for change of the machine which was refused. Hence a complaint under Sec.12 1of the Act was filed. In reply a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act, was raised as the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. On merits it was submitted that it is because of the power failure or fluctuation in electricity, the machine was not working properly, therefore, power modules were changed twice. Complainant gave satisfaction notes as and when machine was attended. The machine was not working properly due to mishandling of the machine by the employees of complainant.

(3.) The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint filed the correspondence of 20 documents made between the complainant and the opposite party and also filed affidavit of the then Deputy Secretary and also examined Krishna Soni the trained typist. The opposite party in sup port of defence version filed five service reports and satisfaction notes and other correspondence and affidavit of G. Arul, Branch Manager (Service) of the Godrej Company. The District Forum after considering the material and documents on record found the allegations in the complaint established and held that the machine was beyond repairs, hence, ordered for replacement of the machine and also ordered for compensation for inconvenience Rs.2,000/-. The costs of Rs.500/- was also awarded.