AID THE WEAKER TRUST vs JUPITER ENGINEERING CO.

IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought a compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- towards the value of the machine and a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages from the opposite party. Opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of Mudrika Sheet-Fed Offset Printing Machine and opposite party No. 1 is its dealer. The complainant, a charitable trust, purchased Mudrika Sheet-Fed Offset Printing Machine (hereinafter referred to as ''Machine'') measuring 18'' x 25'' at a cost of Rs. 6,10,647.07 from the opposite parties. The complainant also purchased a Repromac Vertifical Process Camera (hereinafter referred to as camera) with 270 lens copies revolving turretfor a sum of Rs. 1,21,992/- from the opposite parties. The complainant''s representative, one Mr. B.S. Satyanarayana Setty, visited the factory premises of opposite party No. 2 and identified the machine to be sent to the complainant.

THE grievance of the complainant is that the machine sent by the opposite parties to the complainant was not the one identified by its representative, Sri Satyanarayana Setty. Another grievance of the complainant is that the machine though was to be sent immediately but reached the place of the complainant only after 30 days. It was delivered to the complainant in the first week of September, 1992 whereas it was to be delivered during the month of June-July, 1992. The said machine was installed and commenced working, but it often required repairs. It is the further allegation of the complainant that from the date of commissioning of the machine till the date of filing the complaint on 10.12.93, the machine could run only on 20% of the working days, in consequence of which the complainant was put to heavy loss.

It is the further case of the complainant that the said machine suffered with the following defects : 1. Inking roller setting to be done; 2. Feeder does not off; 3. Damping rollers unit off while running frequently; 4. Delivery is not perfect and too many sheets torn;

RUNNERS are not working properly; Central oil supply unit is not working properly;

CYLINDER pressure setting to be done; Side lays is tight and cannot be adjusted for make ready; Chess is not free and cannot be adjusted for make ready;

PRESSURE and vaccum of compressor is not sufficient to feed pulp board;

DAMPING water supply rollers bearing is not working properly; Ink setting lock spring is missing;

Impression will be off while the machine is running;

WHEN the machine is in running and when the printing is being done, suddenly light will come and the machine will stop; Main motor is not working properly in lower speed." 5. The mechanics of the opposite party, though attended the said defects, but it could not be repaired. The opposite party failed to rectify the defects even after several demands. Subsequently, the complainant even issued a legal notice to the opposite party requestiong to replace the machine. When the opposite parties failed to replace the machine nor they repaired the same, in consequence of which, the complainant had suffered loss in a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation as referred above. 6. The opposite parties filed their version denying the fact that the machine supplied to the complainant was in any way defective. It also denied that the machine sent to the complainant was a different one than the machine identified by the representative of the complainant. The opposite parties further averred that the machine required repairs due to mis-handling of it by the employees of the complainant. The mechanics of the opposite party repaired and rectified the same. The opposite parties on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. 7. During enquiry, the Executive Trustee, of the complainant''s trust, Mr. Krishna Murty, filed his affidavit in evidence. The employee of the complainant''s Trust, Mr. Satyanarayana Setty, also filed his affidavit. The documents filed by the complainant came to be marked as Exs. C-1 to C-13 in evidence. The opposite parties filed their affidavits in evidence and got Ex. C-1 marked in evidence. 8. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties; perused the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record. 9. The first grievance of the complainant is that the machine that was sent to the complainant and installed was different than the machine that was identified by the representative of the complainant, Mr. Satyanarayana Setty. The opposite party has denied this averment made by the complainant. Sri Satyanarayana Setty has filed the affidavit in evidence for the complainant. He has stated in his affidavit that he identified the machine at the place of opposite party No. 2 and informed opposite party No. 2 to send the same immediately. The said Satyanarayana Setty has at para 4 of his affidavit, further averred, thus: "4. When I informed the said change of machine to the Executive Trustee, he enquired with the opposite party No. 1, who convinced the Trustees and got it installed." This would go to show that the machine which was sent and installed was the one that was purchased by the complainant. Therefore, the said grievance of the complainant has no substance. 10. Another grievance of the complainant is that the said machine reached the place of the complainant after a long delay. The representative of the complainant, Mr. Satyanarayana Setty has in this regard, in his affidavit, stated, thus : "3.The opposite party No. 2 promised me that the machine will be at our place within 7 days. However, the machine reached the complainant trust after 30 days "

This would go to show that even according to the version of the complainant that machine reached the complainant after a lapse of about 20 to 25 days. It may be referred herein that opposite party No. 2-manufacturing unit, is located at Ballabgarh, Haryana. The said machine was transported from Ballabgarh to the complainant''s place at Bangalore in a truck. Having regard to this fact, even if there was a delay of few days in transporting, the machine, it cannot be said that it was such an inordinate delay and in consequence of which the complainant was put to any loss. 11. The 3rd and main grievance of the complainant is that the machine did suffer with various defects as referred above. To establish this fact, except the affidavit in evidence of the complainant and Mr. Satyanarayana Setty, no other material has been placed on record by the complainant to substantiate the said grievance. 12. The complainant had written a letter to opposite party No. 1 on 4.2.93, as per Ex. C-7. The said letter, reads, as under : "With reference to your letter cited above I may state that we would pay you the freight charges of Rs. 14,000/-, but not immediately, as we are expecting some compensation from your Ballabgarh office. It is true that you returned to us Rs. 95,000/- by cheque which has been considered as donation to our Trust and a receipt has been given to you accordingly. While specifying that the amount was meant for freight, erecting and commissioning of machine, training staff etc. In that connection you have also added ''your commission'' which is uncalled for and derogatory. You should not have said what is utterly false. You are aware what a heavy loss we incurred on account of the advent of the Mudrika Offset Machine due to the following reasons: 1. Inordinate delay in the supply of machine; 2. Even after erection frequent breakdown and non-performance of machine; 3. Non-availability of mechanic on time; 4. Owing to reasons mentioned above losing lakhs of rupees worth of printing orders from our customers. As such we are depending upon your Ballabgarh office to give us compensation and out of which we will pay you the amount. So, please bear with us."

This would go to show that the opposite party had even given donation of a sum of Rs. 95,000/- to the complainant''s trust. The said letter would further go to show that a general grievance was made regarding frequent breakdown and non-performance of the machine and non-availability of the mechanic on time. These are the only two grievances made by the complainant as per the said letter in the month of Feb., 1993 though the machine came to be installed and started working in the month of September, 1992. 13. Ex. C-1 is another letter written by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 which is dated 26.9.93. The said letter, reads as under : "In response to the Lawyer''s notice with regard to the non-functioning of the offset machine, Mr. Karthik, the mechanic was sent by M/s. Jupiter Engineering to rectify the defects. On attending to the repairs the machine has been brought to order and it started functioning. We wished he could stay with us for a week to watch the machine working perfectly. He pleaded his inability to stay. However, as on today the machine is functioning normally." It would go to show that the machine was brought to order and it was functioning well. This complaint came to be filed on 28.3.94. The complainant has not placed any material on record to show that subsequent thereto, that is, subsequent to 26.9.93 till the complaint came to be filed on 28.3.94, there was any defect in the functioning of the machine. The complainant gave a legal notice, as per Ex. C-11, on 12.8.93 to the opposite parties and the letter, Ex. R-1, is the letter dated 26.9.93 subsequent to the said legal notice, Ex. C-11. Therefore, all these circumstances would go to show that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his grievance that the said printing machine supplied by the opposite parties did suffer with manufacturing defect or any other defect. 14. Therefore, having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the grievances of the complainant have no substance. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.