STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(COMPLAINT NO.25 OF 2008)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 1.9.2008.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 23.09.2010.

Mannu Colour Lab through its Proprietor, Sh. Surinder Singh, Aged about 35 years, SCO No.1048-1049, 1^st Floor, Cabin No.2, Sector 22B, Chandigarh 160 022.

……Complainant.

Versus

Advance Phototech through its authorized signatory Sh. R. P. Singh, WZ-231B, Near Central Bank of India, Village Madipur, Delhi – 110 063.

              ....Opposite Party.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                    OP exparte.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 The complainant filed the present complaint through its proprietor Sh. Surinder Singh alleging that in order to earn his livelihood, he purchased from the OP a Photo Printing Machine , NORITSU 3001 for a total consideration of Rs.18 Lacs. He paid Rs.5 Lacs in advance, took a loan ofRs.8,40,000/- from ICICI Bank, paid Rs.2,90,000/- on 21.6.2006, Rs.50,000/- on 26.6.2006, Rs.20,000/- on 29.6.2006 and Rs.2,52,000/- on 18.9.2006. According to him, he has paid a total of Rs.19,52,000/- to the OP by 18.9.2006 out of which, Rs.95,000/- has been refunded and in this manner, Rs.18,57,000/- has been retained by the OP for the said machine. It was alleged that the complainant had ordered a Dual Magazine Reconditioned model of the machine but the OP supplied only a Single Magazine machine, which developed defects, which have not been removed so far. The complainant sent a notice dated 11.10.2007 by registered post to which the OP submitted a reply admitting that it had received Rs.57,000/- in excess and wanted to refund the same but the said amount has also been refunded so far. When the machine finally broke down on 12.12.2007, he again sent a letter dated 20.12.2007 (copy of which is Annexure C-7) but the OP has not paid any heed to it. The complainant, therefore, prayed for the refund of Rs.18,57,000/- along with interest @15% per annum and requested for taking the Photo Printing Machine back. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.10 Lacs and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                 A notice was issued to the OP. When it was not personally served, the OP was served by publication in Hindustan Times, New Delhi Edition of 14^th March 2009. The OP did not come present even thereafter and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.3.2009.

3.                 We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.

4.                 The contention of the complainant is that he had paid a total sum of Rs.19,52,000/- to the OP as mentioned in Paras No.4, 7, 8 and 10 of the complaint. The OP did not come forward to deny the same even after service, which shows that the OP has nothing to say against the contention of the complainant.

5.                 The complainant served a notice (Annexure C-5) dated 11.10.2007 on the OP in Para No.5 of which, the details of the amount of Rs.19,52,000/- were given by him. The OP sent a reply (Annexure C-6) to the said notice but these payments were not specifically denied by it. Rather, it was admitted that the OP was in receipt of Rs.57,000/- in excess of the price of the machine, which it is bound to refund. According to the complainant also, out of the total amount of Rs.19,52,000/- paid by him, OP has refunded Rs.95,000/- only and is still in possession of Rs.18,57,000/- though the machine was sold only for Rs.18,00,000/-. This fact also corroborates the contention of the complainant that he has paid Rs.18,57,000/- to the OP. The evasive reply filed by the OP in the shape of Annexure C-6, therefore, corroborates the contention of the complainant.

6.                 According to the complainant, the machine is not working properly and when it finally broke down, a notice (Annexure C-7) dated 19.12.2007 was issued by him. Even inspite of that, no efforts were made by the OP to remove the defects or to make the machine in working condition. The machine was delivered on 12.6.2007 as mentioned in Para No.14 of the complaint and was installed on 27.7.2007. It was delivered when after a long delay in delivery of the machine, the complainant requested the OP vide Annexure C-3 dated 19.2.2007 to cancel the order and to refund the amount. However, instead of refunding the amount, the OP delivered the machine on 12.6.2007, which was installed on 27.7.2007. The machine did not work properly and finally broke down on 12.12.2007. The purpose for which the machine was purchased by the complainant was therefore not served.

7.                 It was also contended by the complainant that he had ordered the Dual Magazine Model of the machine, the price of which was Rs.18 Lacs but instead of delivering the Dual Magazine Model, the OP supplied a Single Magazine Model, though the price charged was of Dual Magazine Model. There is no rebuttal of this contention also because the OP preferred to be proceeded against exparte even after service by proclamation in the newspaper. It shows that the OP had nothing to say against the contention of the complainant. If the desired machine has not been installed, the OP is not entitled to keep the sale amount and is liable to take back the machine and refund the amount to the complainant.

8.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.18,57,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and take back the machine from the premises of the complainant at their own expenses. If the amount is not refunded within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, OP would be liable to pay interest @12% per annum since the date of respective payments till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

9.                 Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

23^rd September 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(COMPLAINT NO.25 OF 2008)

Argued by:          Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                    OP exparte.

Dated the 23^rd day of September 2010.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed.