MAKHAN GOON Vs. JITENDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 30.1.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati (for short 'State Commission) vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that, respondent No. 2 (opposite party Np. 1 before the District Forum) is a manufacturer of offset printing machinery and spare parts with head office at Baroda and petitioner (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) is the authorized agent of. respondent No. 2.

(3.) Respondent No. 1/complainant, purchased an Image 1117 Single Colour Offset Machine from respondent No. 2 through its, agent petitioner, against a consideration amount of Rs. 2,82,900, out of which he took an amount of Rs. 1,95,000 as a medium term loan from Union Bank of India, Simlaguri Branch. Balance amount was paid by respondent No. 1 himself. The machine was installed on 26.6.2001. But on the very same day of installation, it is alleged that machine was found to be defective. The mechanic deputed by petitioner reported that there were inherent defects in the machine. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 contacted the petitioner, who in turn deputed their authorized mechanic to inspect the defective machine on 9.7.2001 and reported that the same was completely out of order. Respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner for replacement of the machine with compensation of Rs. 20,000 per month with effect from 26.6.2001. Petitioner wrote to respondent No. 2 and requested him to deal with the case of respondent No.1. However, such request yielded no result. Finding no alternative, respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 on 21.11.2001, with copy to the petitioner, disclosing his problems and asked him to replace the machine immediately with the compensation of Rs. 20,000 per month from the day of its installation. On 30.11.2001, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 and drew his attention to the facts that machine suffers manifest defects from its inception and requested the latter to meet respondent No. 1. Again on 9.1.2002, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 with copy to respondent No. 1, to settle the dispute, but in vain, Finding no way out respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before District Forum with a prayer for refund of the cost of the machine amounting to Rs. 2,82,900 with compensation of Rs. 20,000 p.m. from the day of installation of the machine, with cost and interest till realization.