AJAY PAUL SINGH TANWAR Vs. PADAM GRAPHICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notices were issued on this appeal on 10/3/2023 and the appellant/complainant had appeared in person on 8/8/2023 to advance his submissions.

(2.) Since the respondent/opposite party had not yet been served, a direction was issued to serve the respondent/opposite party on their email address. Accordingly, learned counsel put in appearance on 22/11/2023, where-after the appeal has been heard with the consent of the learned counsel finally today.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in the impugned order dtd. 6/9/2022 has recorded peculiar findings, inasmuch as the complaint was with regard to a defect in the machine supplied by the respondent that was purchased for a price of Rs.15,60,066.00. The machine had been purchased after taking a term loan from the Punjab National Bank, which was a Bag Making Machine that was installed by the complainant to earn his livelihood by self-employment. Learned counsel contends that the complaint has been dismissed as pre-mature on the ground that the complainant had not issued a legal notice to the opposite party prior to the filing of the complaint. The other direction given by the State Commission is urged to be equally untenable whereby the supplier/opposite party has been granted one month's time to repair the machine on receipt of the order or on issuing legal notice by the complainant within 45 days and then if the complainant is still dissatisfied, he has been given liberty to file a fresh complaint. The submission is that this was not the relief prayed for nor such a direction could have been give once the complaint had been dismissed for want of legal notice. The submission is that the State Commission has delivered an order which is neither in conformity of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) nor do the directions in any way grant relief to the complainant with regard to the defect in the machine and the compensation claimed in respect thereof. The contention is that the impugned order is unjust and untenable and therefore deserves to be set aside.