PURNIMA PRINTMAC PVT. LTD. vs JUGAL KISHORE GANGIL

PETITIONER was the opposite party. Respondent/complainant filed complaint claiming certain reliefs alleging that after raising loan from State Bank of India, he placed order for supply of Offset machine size 15 x 20 ft. with the petitioner and amount of Rs. 4,80,900/- was also paid. However, the machine supplied by petitioner was of the size 18 x 21 ft. PETITIONER contested the complaint. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to supply machine of the size 15 x 20 ft. for which order was placed and in alternative, to refund the amount received for the machine. Dissatisfied with District Forum''s order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 278/2000 while respondent, No. 1092/2003. Both these appeals were disposed of by the State Commission with direction to the petitioner to replace the machine by a machine of the size of 15 x 20 or to refund amount of Rs. 4,80,900/-. State Commission took note of the report dated 27.2.2003 of Dy. Collector according to which printing area of the machine is 18 by 21. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision petition.

HAVING heard Ms. Neelam Gupta for petitioner and having noticed concurrent finding returned by both the Fora below in regard to machine supplied by petitioner being of different size than the one for which order was placed, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.