VIJENDRA KUMAR Vs. KAVITA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 04.08.2006 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1300 of 1998, by which the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the respondents against the order dated 19.06.1998 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalore (in short, 'the District Forum) and directed them to pay to the petitioner/complainant Rs.7,000/- within two months and, on failure to do so, also pay interest thereon @ 9% per annum.

(2.) THE petitioner was the complainant before the Forum and the respondents were the opposite parties (OPs). The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents to the effect that the photocopying machine purchased by him from OP 1 (after obtaining loan from the State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Cooperative Corporation) started malfunctioning soon after it was delivered. Though he contacted the OPs repeatedly, the defects were not rectified. This led him to file a consumer complaint with the prayer for directions to the OPs to either replace the defective machine or repair it and also pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) OPS contested the complaint on the preliminary issue that the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. On merits, they contended that the machine was inspected three times in two months and no defects were found. Moreover, the complainant had already taken out more than 50,000 photocopies using the machine. Hence the malfunctioning, if any, of the photocopying machine was due to mishandling by the operating person as well as possible fluctuations in the electric supply voltage. They added that if the complainant were to bring the machine to Jodhpur, they would be ready to attend to any defect found during inspection.