KIRAN MISHRA Vs. DENTSPLY INDIA PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.11.2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 955/2013 in F.A. No. 885/2012 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Mishra by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Ceramco 7.0 Furnace 230 vat for her laboratory from OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- vide Invoice No. 16915 dated 2.9.2006. Machine was having manufacturing defect and did not give result as promised by OP. Many times the complainant requested the respondent-company but the respondent did not bother to the request of the complainant and on the insistence of the complainant the mechanics of the respondent tried to correct the furnace but of no use and the complainant has to suffer the losses. The engineer of the respondent Sh. Rajesh came to the lab of the complainant but he also not succeed in repairing the above said machine and promised to come in next week as many parts of the machine has to be changed. Thereafter nobody from the side of respondent bothered and at last on 11.8.2008 the complainant wrote to the Manager of the respondent and again on 19.8.2008 the complainant wrote to the respondent and requested them to repair the furnace supplied by him. On 25.8.2008 the Engineer Sh. Rajesh Sharma visited the lab of the complainant and made some repairs in the machine and made it in working condition temporarily but on the next day the said furnace again went out of order. The complainant lastly informed the respondent on 27.8.2008 telephonically. The respondent company gave a warranty of two year but they failed to fulfil their part of agreement and to give the sufficient services. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the said machine and if there would have been any complaint the complainant could have been aware of the same at the time of demonstration. The complainant purchased the above said machine on 2.9.2006 and informed the respondent about the defect in the month of November 2007 and no complaint has been made during the said period of 14 months, which shows the malafide intention of the complainant. It was further submitted that the respondent company has the policy of replacing or repairing its products if any kind of manufacturing defect is found in its product within the stipulated period. The product of respondent company are sold under warranty/guarantee against any manufacturing defect, but if any damage is caused due to the negligence of the complainant the respondent cannot be held liable for the same and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to replace furnace or to refund cost of the machine with 9% p.a. interest and also pay Rs.5,000 as cost of the proceedings. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.