KRISHNA ENGINEERING COMPANY vs GENINS TOOLS SOLUTIONS

This revision challenges the order dated 22.01.2015 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad (''the State Commission'') in Appeal no. 324 of 2014.

Mr Chirag Mahendrabhai Patel owner of Krishna Engineering Company - petitioner does the job work on the CNC Machines using computer software with his father Mr Mahendra Patel for self-employment. To run the CNC Machine the petitioner was in need of a licenced version of computer software and good company machine tools. For this the petitioner met the respondent company partner Mr Shibu Bhaskaran. The respondent recommended the purchase the ''Hyper Mill'' software and its relevant machine tools. He further assured that full training would be given from the company engineers with regard to operation of the software. The petitioner purchased the said ''Hyper Mill'' software from the respondent company and paid Rs.51,000/- at the time of placement of order by cheque and Rs.7,59,793/- was paid by cheque of Cosmos Bank on September 2011. The said ''Hyper Mill'' software was installed at the petitioner''s place. The petitioner''s computer developed a glitch and so the petitioner requested the respondent not to send the engineers for training for 10-15 days. After 15 days, the said machine was repaired and the respondent no. 1 sent technicians and training was given for 1-2 days, thereafter they did not turn up for giving the remaining training.

On repeated messages, the respondent did not send Mr Jignesh Chikhalikar or Vipul Panchal and hence, the petitioner could not utilise the purchased software. After becoming tired and unwillingly a new software "master chem" software was purchased at a cost of Rs.3,80,000/-. The petitioner repeatedly had requested the respondent for completing the training but did not care and did not give the training. Hence, the respondent has committed deficiency in service.

The respondent in their response before the District Forum stated that the main dispute was after installation of software. The Training Programme and training time was scheduled by the respondent but the last due instalments were to be paid by October 2011 by the petitioner and they did not want to pay. Normally the training was for 10-15 days then there was an advance training of five days. Advance training is being given 15 days after the initial training. The company sent the Engineer for training to the petitioner, as the petitioner was technically not capable, his grasp was poor, hence, he was unable to take the training. Further, he used to avoid the training by making excuses. Then there was glitch in the computer of the petitioner. It was not repaired for one month. The petitioner started to complain about the software in spite of the fact that there was no defect. Moreover, this training can be taken by e-mail or can be given at the customer''s home too. The software which had been sold by the respondent had neither any manufacturing defect nor any quality defect. The petitioner did not know its usage as he was incapable to grasping the training. Hence, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint be set aside.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ahmedabad (Rural) (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 19.11.2013 while dismissing the complaint, observed as under:

" In this case there is no dispute to accept the fact that the training has to be given. There is no dispute to accept the facts that the training been provided by company free of cost, company has assured same and on behalf of respondent company engineers went to provide training to complainant. Complainant says, there is not completion of training, whereas respondent says that they were ready for training but complainant himself was keeping himself away or escaping to participate in training. Looking into the entire situation, there is no allegation from complainant that there was any defect in sold goods. Even complainant does not clarify that, training was free of cost so it is not a party. It appears that training was started and respondent was prepared to give it. Then we reach to an opinion that whole dispute cannot come under consumer protection act. Moreover complainant could not prove that, respondent party was not ready to provide training" .

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 22.01.2015, while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

" There is no complaint of manufacturing defect or quality defect related appellate complaint and due to appellant computer was disturbed so as per appellant instruction training was not given. Then, Mr Jignesh Chikhlikar engineer gave training. It is mentioned that, training is scheduled by company and accordingly, respondents were remain enthusiastic for training.

Appellant have allegations that training was not given, whereas respondent mentioned that, appellant himself remained careless and respondent party showed preparation to decide schedule of training and to give training according to presence of forum.

In these circumstances, we do not find any legal deficiency in the learned forum''s order. Learned forum order is legal. So, appeal is dismissed and following order has been declared:

Appeal is not granted. Order given by the District Forum, Ahmedabad City for case no. 922 of 2012 dated 19.11.2013 stands to be continue."

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the facts of the case. He contended that the respondent had indirectly confessed that the complete training had not been given and hence, there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondent due to which he had to buy a new CNC Machine and new software.

We have carefully gone through the records of the case. In his complaint the petitioner has nowhere stated that there was any defect either in the software provided by the respondent or any delay in the installation or the training, which was in the nature of basic training to familiarise and customise the software began late, because after installation there was glitch in the computer of the petitioner due to which he himself had requested the respondent that the training should take place after 10-15 days. As per the petitioner on his request the respondent did sent Mr Jignesh Chikhalikar to impart training. However, it appears that after 2-3 days the training was not continued. As per the petitioner, the training was not continued, because Mr Chirag Patel had a very busy schedule and further he had no knowledge of the software and was incapable of training. Thereafter, the training fizzled out. As per the respondent, the first training session started in the month of June 2011 with the licenced version which the company offer for training as well as prove out purpose. The problem arose when there was some glitch with the petitioner''s computer and the respondent had started providing training on "Hyper Mill", on engineer Mr Jignesh Chikhalikar''s laptop. The customer was also provided some CAM programmes to the machine components, as per his needs which was through e-mail. The training period was usually for 10-15 days which was in the nature of basic learning and after which the advance training is given for five days and which was given 15 days after the basic training so that a person is thoroughly customised to the software. The petitioner requested that the training was given to Mr Chirag Patel. As he was not technically competent to grasp the software even after repeated sessions he could not grasp or remember the basics and had to be retaught in every session. The petitioners failed to allocate a proper person for operating the machine and as Mr Chirag Patel was not technically competent to grasp the training and reluctant for continue, the training could not continue. The petitioner started complaining about not getting the training only, when the respondents started pressurising for payments which were over-due by almost three months.

In view of the above, we are not convinced with arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr Chirag Patel was competent to take training and that he had made all efforts to take the training. He has given us no evidence to show that the respondent in any way was reluctant or negligent in imparting training. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to give any evidence to show that there was any defect in the software. If the petitioner purchase a new CNC Machine or Software it was not due to lack of training.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed.