JAYEM IMPEX Vs. HITESHBHAI GOKALBHAI MARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/complainant, claiming to be in the business of embroidery and job work of tailoring in the name of Tamanna Textiles purchased a Kansai Pin-Tucking Machine and Kansai Special 12 Needle Pleating Machine from the petitioner. He paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- for the Tucking Machine completed with table/stand/motor and standard accessories and Rs. 2,05,000/- for the Needle Pleating Machine completed with table/stand/motor and standard accessories. According to the complainant a steam iron was also purchased by him alongwith the aforesaid two machines. However, the said steam iron was returned since it was found to be defective. The steam iron was then repaired by the petitioner, but even thereafter it was not working properly.

(2.) When a technician was eventually deputed by the petitioner to install the Tucking Machine and the Pleating Machine, it was found that in one machine only the sewing work could be done and there was no attachment. The machines would work in the gap of 1/8, but there was no folder in it. It was found by the complainant that Pleating and Tucking work could not be done with the aforesaid machines. As a result, the technician sent by the petitioner could not install the machines. Another technician was sent by the petitioner after 11/2 months. He also reported that in the Pleating Machine, there was no folder and therefore pleating could not be done. He repaired the Pin-Tucking Machine and installed the said machine after a delay of 21/2 months. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid defects in the Tucking Machine and the Pleating Machine, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) The petitioner did not appear before the District Forum and therefore was proceeded exparte. Vide order dated 27.08.2010, the District Forum directed the petitioner to take back the Pleating Machine and refund the sale consideration of Rs. 1,47,000/-, which it had taken from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint. The petitioner was also directed to take back the defective steam iron and refund the sale consideration of Rs. 15,188/- alongwith similar interest. The petitioner was further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.09.2014, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved from dismissal of its appeal, the petitioner is before us, by way of this revision petition.