VISHWA JYOTI PRINTERS vs MOLINS OF INDIA

F .A. No. 106 of 1991 is an appeal against the order dated 21.3.1991 passed by the State Commission of Maharashtra awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards loss caused to him by deficiency in not properly servicing the printing machine supplied by the Appellant herein, and which was not found to be working properly from time to time and which failed to give the promised output. It also awarded interest at 14% on the compensation payable from the date of the complaint viz. 10.8.1990 till the payment of the amount awarded by the appellant herein to the complainant. Further order lays down that the compensation along with interest should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the appellant failing which interest would be payable at the enhanced rate of 18% per annum after the expiry of the period of thirty days.

BRIEFLY the facts are that M/s. Vishwa Jyoti Printers had purchased a printing machine from the Appellant M/s. Molins India Ltd. in October, 1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,22,350.90. The supplier had given a warranty to rectify the defects in the working of the machine for a period of one year after delivery. The printing machine was delivered and installed at the premises of the complainant by 16.12.1988. The complaints made by the complainants regarding the malfunctioning of the machine are briefly set out below: The gist of these complaints is that the machine was not giving proper service. There were frequent stoppages and the output was low.

In regard to output, which appears to be the main complaint, the respondent complainant alleged tint the machine was not giving 7,200 impressions per hour as promised.

AFTER considering the facts, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the printing machine in question was not giving the results as per the promise held out by the manufacturer even after repairs and therefore it did not conform to the performance specifications of the machine claimed by the supplier.

THE appellant has submitted that, according to the performance specifications, the machine''s printing range is 3,600 to 7,200 impressions per hour. The respondent/complainant had himself accepted that the machine was giving 4,500 impressions per hour and this output was within the promised range. We further explained that the optimum number of impressions viz. 7,200 can be achieved provided the paper and ink are of the appropriate quality and the machine operator is skilled. He has also placed on record the actual paper used by the respondent/complainant, which, according to the appellant, was not of the requisite quality. He maintained only fine quantity of paper can be printed at high speeds. He also explained the time spent in loading the paper and removing the printing paper from the delivery trays has also to be taken into account in computing the number of papers printed per hour. The appellant also pointed out that the respondent complainant was working the machine "with paper masters as opposed to metal plates". If paper masters are used, longer time is taken for printing. The appellant also claimed that he had rendered service � the defects were of minor nature and were removed from time to time, and on each occasion the respondent accepted that the machine after servicing was working satisfactorily.

FROM the facts enumerated above, it would appear that there was no major defect in the working of the machine. Whatever defects were reported from time to time, these were attended to and rectified. Further the supplier should have been asked to prove the output with best quality paper etc. at the time of taking delivery and installation of the printing machine on 16.12.1988 and before giving the certificate that the machine was working properly. The objection regarding output has been raised belatedly.

IT would be evident from the above that it is not established that the output of the machine was low. The appellant has satisfactorily explained the number of impressions that can be printed per hour, and why the optimum number could not be achieved. In any case this was within the range promised by the supplier/appellant. There are no serious defects in the machine and whatever defects were pointed out by the complainant/respondent the same were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant/respondent from time to time as is evident from the documents of repairs/servicing. In particular the last complaint regarding malfunctioning of the machine is dated 11.10.1989, whereas the complaint before the State Commission for replacement of machine was filed on 10.08.1990. There is no material or evidence on record to show that the machine was not functioning properly or remained in-operative after October, 1989. The State Commission has also not given details as to how the loss of Rs. 50,000/- was incurred by the respondent complainant. We, therefore, hold that no deficiency in service has been established on the part of the Appellant and therefore the Appeal succeeds and the Order of the State Commission is set aside. No costs.

BEFORE we part with the order, we would like to mention that the appellant has stated that he was rendering free service for the maintenance of the machine for a period of one year under the warranty and as such, in the absence of consideration, the complainant was not a consumer and did not render any service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not accept this contention of the Appellant. The warranty was a part of the composite contract for supply of the printing machine and its maintenance for a period of one year. The consideration for service to be rendered under the warranty is obviously included in the sale price of the machine. In any case there cannot be an agreement including warranty without consideration. In other words, it is wrong to maintain that warranty obligations were being rendered gratis.