NATIONAL SPORTS CLUB OF INDIA Vs. MUKESH GANJAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, National Sports Club of India approached this Commission with the allegations that Ice-cube making machine (hereinafter referred as 'machine') purchased was defective. The opposite party no.1 is the local dealer of the machine. The opposite parties Nos.2, 3 and 5 are the manufacturers of the machine. The opposite party no.4 was having a service contract of the said machine with the complainant According to complainant he purchased the machine, viz. "refco" Ice Cube making machine for a consideration of Rs.1,05,406/- on 10.7.90 from opposite party no.1. The said machine was delivered to complainant on 6.11.1990. There was guarantee for the effective working of the machine for a period of 12 months. The documents of guarantee are at Ex. 'a' and '8' of the complaint The complainant alleged that the machine was delivered to him without proper checking and testing which fact was complained by the complainant. However, the said machine was commissioned on 12.11.90 for the first time. Ex. 'c' is the report as regards the starting of the machine. According to complainant, from the very inception, the machine was not in a proper working condition. The complainant, therefore, on 19.11.90 communicated to opposite party no.1 about the unsatisfactory results of the machine. On 23.11.90, the Opposite Party no.4 attended the servicing of the said machine. However, the result was unsatisfactory. It was noticed that raw ice was coming out of the machine instead of ice cubes. The letter and the service report are collectively marked as Ex. 'd'. Again on 6.12.1990, the complainant wrote to Opposite Party no.1 about the defective nature of the machine and requested to replace the said machine with a new one or to refund the purchase price. The said letter is at Ex. 'e'. The complainant further alleged that despite the efforts made by Opposite Party no.1 and 4 to repair the said machine, it could not yield satisfactory results in as much as it was not producing ice-cubes but was giving out raw ice. The complainant, therefore, filed his complaint claiming refund of the cost of the machine with 18% P. A. interest. The complainant also claimed the amount of compensation for Rs.11,760/- towards the loss suffered due to the non-functioning of the machine. The complainant also claimed costs.

(2.) The opposite parties were served with a notice u/sec.13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act individually. All of them received the aforesaid notices along with the copy of the complaint. However, on the date of hearing on 9.3.92, except opposite party Nos.1 and 4, rest of the opponents did not appear before this Commission. The Commission therefore, proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties Nos.2,3 and 5 who are the manufacturers of this machine. The complainant as well as the opposite parties 1 and 4 filed their documents, affidavits and were also heard through the respective Advocates.

(3.) The opposite parties Nos.1 and 4 in their joint written version admitted the sale of the machine to the complainant manufactured by opposite party no.2 at Delhi. According to opposite party Nos.1 and 4 they were mainly local dealers and service contractors and that they did their job of rendering necessary service to the complainants. It has been further stated that the manufacturer, opposite party no.2 manufactured the machine in question at Delhi and sold the machine to the complainant through them. Thus, the opposite parties Nos.1 and 4 denied their responsibility to 35 refund the purchase price to complainant. The other contentions raised by the opposite parties Nos.1 and 4 are not of any consequence.