RELLECH BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEMS LTD. vs AMULYA KUMAR BEHARA

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to move the District Forum are as under :

THE petitioner/opposite party supplied a computerised semi-auto analyser Jolly-100 machine to the complainant-respondent on receiving Rs. 1,80,000 against the total cost of Rs. 2,00,000. THE machine went out of order so many times, and all the times the opposite party went and rectified the defects. THE District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as it had supplied a defective machine to the complainant which went out of order several times within the warranty period and could not be satisfactorily repaired. In the result, the District Forum allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant by directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,80,000 and take back the defective machine. THE opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 and costs of Rs. 500. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and while affirming the direction of the District Forum with regard to refund of Rs. 1,80,000, interest at the rate of 12% was also awarded from 19.1.1999 the date on which a fax message was sent by the complainant to the opposite party intimating the opposite party that the machine went out of order once again. In addition to this the State Commission also awarded Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

We have heard Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the detailed order of the District Forum and the order of the State Commission. On the preliminary objection that the machine was bought for commercial purpose, we find no evidence that the machine was not being operated by the complainant for earning his livelihood. Moreover, it is also a case of deficiency of service which the opposite party failed to render under its warranty. Therefore, on that score also it would be a consumer dispute. A reference in this connection be made to our earlier decision, M/s. Kody Elcot Ltd. v. Dr. C.P. Gupta, I (1996) CPJ 7 (NC)=1999 NCJ 346 (NC). In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity, error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission and affirm the same and dismiss this revision petition. R.P. dismissed.