PAL KALA Vs. RATI PAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (herein "The State Commission"), wherein the complaint No. 5 of 2007 was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts are that, the complainant, Shripal Kala runs a business in the name of Kala Photo Colour Lab at Jodhpur for his livelihood. After going through the advertisement, he had placed an order for the photo machine "Fuji Frontier 375" for Rs. 69, 00, 000/- from OP-1. The complainant had paid Rs. 2 lakh towards advance and thereafter entire amount of Rs.66, 95, 000/- was paid. The OP issued the bill for payment of Rs. 66, 13, 360/- therefore, as per complainant, he paid excess amount of Rs.81, 640/- to the OP-1. The machine was delivered by the OPs on 25.6.2004 at Jodhpur. Later on, the complainant came to know that the machine was not as per the specifications. The accessories and software were not installed alongwith the machine. The power supply was also faulty, which costed him additional Rs. 3, 00, 000/-. The complainant informed it to the OPs and made several requests but, OPs turn deaf ears towards his request. After considerable delay, one officer of the OP-1, visited the complainant's place, inspected the machine and stated that some parts are required to be repaired. The representative of OPs took away the power supply unit and the CD containing Software alongwith him, thereby putting the complainant in further difficulty. The complainant further alleged that the market value of the machine was about Rs. 40, 00, 000/-, however, OP-1 has recovered Rs.66, 95, 000/- from him. Thus, the OP-1 had illegally charged excessive amount of Rs. 26, 13, 360/- which needs to be refunded. On those grounds, the complainant had filed a complaint before the State Commission and claimed Rs. 87, 48, 360/- from the OPs.

(3.) The opposite party(s) filed joint written version and denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was false and frivolous. The main objection was that the machine was purchased for business purpose, thus, it was for commercial use. Hence, the complainant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as a 'consumer'. The complainant did not prove that there was a manufacturing defect. The OPs further submitted that there was settlement arrived between the parties in the criminal case filed by the complainant against the OPs. As per the settlement, the OPs had paid Rs.4, 90, 882/- to the complainant on 25.10.2005. Therefore, there was no question of any further refund of Rs.81, 640/- to the complainant. The OPs have never charged excess amount, nor there was any deficiency in service from them.