Delhi

StateCommission

C-21/2006

Nitesh Color Lab - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jindal Photo Film Limited - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 01.02.2017

Complaint Case No. 21/2006

In the matter of:

M/s Nitesh Color Lab

Through its Partners Sh. Krishan Lal

1565, Cinema Street, Gandhi Nagar

Delhi-110031                                        .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

56/2, Hanuman Road

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Sh. Shayam Jindal
3.  

M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

56/2 Hanuman Road

New Delhi-110001

 

3. Mr. Shammi Gupta
4.  

M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

56/2 Hanuman Road

New Delhi-110001

 

4. M/s Fuji Film

Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.

26-30, Nishiazabu 2- Chome

Minat-Ku, Tokyo 106-620

 

5. M/s Fuji Film

Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.

C/o Le Mertiden Hotel Ltd.

New Delhi-110001                    ..........Opposite Parties

 

                                                                  

Complaint Case No. 193/2007

In the matter of:

M/s Nitesh Color Lab

Through its Partners Sh. Krishan Lal

1565, Cinema Street, Gandhi Nagar

Delhi-110031                                        .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

Rajinder Palace

Patel Nagar

•  

 

2. Sh. Shayam Jindal
3.  

M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

Rajinder Palace

Patel Nagar

•  

 

3. Mr. Shami Gupta
4.  

M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited

Rajinder Palace

Patel Nagar

•  

 

4. Mr. Tapas Deb

Dy. General Manager

M/s Jindal Photo Film Ltd.

Rajinder Palace

Patel Nagar

•  

 

5. M/s Fuji Film Corporation
8.  

Janpath, New Delhi

 

6. M/s Fuji Film

Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.

26-30, Nishiazabu 2- Chome

Minat-Ku, Tokyo 106-620

 

7. ICICI Bank Ltd.

Block E-1, 2^ND Floor

Videocon Tower

Jhandewalan Extn.

New Delhi-110055                    ..........Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         This order shall dispose of both the abovesaid complaints.Facts of both these complaints are common. Case of the complainant Sh. Krishna Lal is that he is a partner of M/s Nitesh Colour Lab on whose behalf the present complaints are filed.
2.         Complainant purchased two digital mini lab frontier machines bearing no. 570, scanner/image processor/laser PLP SP-3000, LP-5700 consisting of negative print, media print, mobile, mobile colour print etc. The machines/units were imported by M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited 56/2, Hanuman Road, New Delhi-110001 (OP-1) from Japan. Machines were manufactured by M/s Fuji Film, Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.26-30, Nishiazabu 2-Chome, Minat-Ku, Tokyo 106-620, Japan (OP-4). Machines were got financed by the complainant from ICICI Bank Ltd. Videocon Tower Block E-1 Jhandewalan New Delhi. It was agreed between the parties that in case the machines were found defective, OP-6 i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. would take over the machines and recover the dues from OP-1 i.e. M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited. Before proceeding further it may be made here clear that M/s Fuji Film Tokyo Japan (OP-4) was the manufacturer of the machines whereas M/s Jindal Photo Film Limited (OP-1) was the dealer of the same in India. Complainant has filed two separate complaints for these two machines i.e. complaint nos. 21/2006 and 193/2007.
3.         Grievance of the complainant is that after about two months of the purchase of the machines, the same were found totally defective. Complainant started receiving complaints from his clients. On complaint filed with OP-1, mechanics/engineers were deputed for rectifying the defects. It was found that the gear of the machines was out of order. Besides this, there was a defect in dryer belt. Having changed the dryer belt ten times, the defect continued. Another defect was found in CP-49-EPC as it had no proper chemistry. Fifteen complaints made to the OPs proved futile. Complainant alleges that he suffered business loss to the tune of Rs. 12.5 lacs within a period of 6 months. Adding loss incurred on the count of manpower and energy, complainant allegedly suffered loss of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs).
4.         Complainant also disclosed in both the complaints that he had purchased the said machines for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs Only) has been claimed in each of these complaints.
5.         During the course of proceedings complainant moved an application in this Commission for deletion of the name of OP-6 i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. Jhandewalan Delhi. Complainant stated in the said application that in the proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal Delhi, ICICI Bank Ltd. (OP-6) sold both the machines which are the separate subject matter of these complaints. Sale of these machines took place out of a settlementhaving been arrived at between the parties in Debt Recovery Tribunal.
6.         With the aforesaid spectrum of facts, we are confronted with a question whether the consumer complaints survive after the subject material i.e. the machines having been sold by the complainant. In the case of Rajeev Gulati v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.,III (2013) CPJ 273 (NC), National Commission held that since the vehicle in the said case had been sold during the pendency of the proceedings before the consumer fora, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation.  In the absence of material evidence of manufacturing defect in the goods,directions for return of the goods cannot be executed because in such cases goods are no more in possession of the complainant. Factum of any manufacturing defect existing or not, can also not be ascertained by any expert. Following case law also supports the aforesaid legal position:

i. Honda Cars India Ltd. v. Jitender Singh MadanIV 2013 CPJ 258.

 

ii. Pasha v. TATA Motors & Ors. IV 2011 CPJ 107

 

iii. TATA Motorsv. Huzoor Maharaj Baba Desh Raj & Anr.in  Revision Petition No. 2562/2012 decided on 25.09.2013

 

iv. TATA Motorsv. Manoj Gadi & Anr.II 2014 CPJ 665.

 

7.         In view of the legal position discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that both the consumer complaints i.e. Complaint Case No. 21/2006 and Complaint Case No. 193/2007 cannot subsist in the eyes of law. The same are hence dismissed.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the files be consigned to Records.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL