Case No.CC/243/2013

Date of Institution:-08.06.2013

Order Reserved on :- 17.05.2024

           Date of Order :-20.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Servo Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

84, DSIDC Complex, Okhla-2.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Jyotesh Engineering & Marketing Consultants

B-127, Sector-65, Noida – 201301.

District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatthe complainant is engaged in the business of design and development of custom built electronic/electromechanical equipment. The complainant has approached the OP                      for the purchase of one compressor. The OP gave a quotation for a compressor Model no.  MCH-6 ET to the complainant and after a round of negotiation a purchase order was placed upon the OP by the complainant dated 19.07.2012. A copy of purchase order is annexed as Annexure P-1. The OP has sent a proforma invoice for Rs.2,49,700/- dated 25.07.2012. Copy of the said invoice is annexed as Annexure P-2. The compressor was delivered on 28.07.2012 against invoice no. JEM-INV-Noida-055-12-13 dated 27.07.2012. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P-3. The compressor was covered under warranty for a period of one year as per para 1.5 of the manual of the said compressor. A copy of the extract of relevant portion is annexed as Annexure P-4. The compressor has developed a snag/defect in the end of December, 2012 and the same was informed to the OP. An engineer of the OP visited the premises of the complainant and informed the complainant that the same cannot be repaired at the site and the complainant has delivered the compressor to the warehouse of the OP on 28.12.2012 for necessary repair under the warranty period. The complainant was shocked to see the email dated 08.01.2013 in which the expenses for the repair of the compressor was Rs. 1,10,516/- + service charges. The compressor was still under warranty. A copy of the said email is annexed as Annexure P-5. The complainant has requested the OP to repair the compressor free of cost as the compressor was under warranty period but the OP has refused to repair it. The complainant was forced to agree to pay Rs.40,000/- + taxes lumpsum for the repair. The emails in this correspondence also annexed as Annexure P-6 to P-8.  The compressor was finally repaired and delivered to the complainant around 22.02.2013. The complainant was shocked that the compressor again developed fault on 25.01.2013. The matter was brought to the notice of the OP on 25.01.2013. The OP sent engineer to repair the same after several days and the engineer could repair the compressor and informed the complainant that the compressor had to be taken back to the warehouse of OP. The engineer took the compressor on 12.02.2013.  A copy of the challan is annexed as Annexure P-9. The complainant has requested the OP to rectify the problem in the compressor but the OP has suggested the complainant to purchase a new compressor instead of repairing the compressor. The OP has kept the compressor with itself despite the complainant has requested to return the compressor to the complainant but in vain. The complainant has prayed for refund of cost of compressor Rs.2,49,700/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred) alongwith expenses incurred on repair of the  faulty compressor Rs.45436/- and Rs.295136/- for mental harassment and Rs.50000/- for litigation charges.
2. Notice was served to OPand OP entered its appearance and filed written statement taking several preliminary objections thatthis Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint and the matter pertains to civil in nature. The said compressor was used for commercial purposes by the complainant and therefore the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The OP has stated that while purchasing the compressor, it was clearly mentioned that the pressure is 300 BAR and this was accepted by the complainant. The OP has never committed to supply any compressor for pressure above 300 BAR to the complainant. The defect in the compressor was developed due to pressure above 300 BAR as the OP has clearly informed the complainant that the pressure of the compressor is 300 BAR.  The OP has stated that the defect was developed due to excessive running, discharge filter not replaced and complainant has not installed the PMV as was suggested by OP staff at the time of commissioning. The OP has informed the complainant to bear the 50% cost of repair to pay Rs.45000/- lumpsum but the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/-for the repair of the compressor. The OP is not liable for the any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. In response to the written statement, the complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations leveled in the written statement.
4. Both the parties have filed affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments in support of their respective case.
5. On 17.05.2024, the case was listed for arguments and none were present. The written arguments were already on record. As the case is of 2013,hencethe order was reserved.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he had approached the OP                               for the purchase of one compressor. The OP gave a quotation for a compressor Model no.  MCH-6 ET to the complainant and after a round of negotiation a purchase order was placed upon the OP by the complainant dated 19.07.2012. The OP has sent a proforma invoice for Rs.2,49,700/- dated 25.07.2012. The compressor was delivered on 28.07.2012 against invoice no. JEM-INV-Noida-055-12-13 dated 27.07.2012. The compressor was covered under warranty for a period of one year as per para 1.5 of the manual of the said compressor. The compressor has developed a snag/defect in the end of December, 2012 and the same was informed to the OP. An engineer of the OP visited the premises of the complainant and informed the complainant that the same cannot be repaired at the site and the complainant has delivered the compressor to the warehouse of the OP on 28.12.2012 for necessary repair under the warranty period. The complainant was shocked to see the email dated 08.01.2013 in which the expenses for the repair of the compressor was Rs. 1,10,516/- + service charges.  The compressor was still under warranty. The complainant has requested the OP to repair the compressor free of cost as the compressor was under warranty period but the OP has refused to repair it. The complainant was forced to agree to pay Rs.40,000/- + taxes lumpsum for the repair. The compressor was finally repaired and delivered to the complainant around 22.02.2013. The complainant was shocked that the compressor again developed fault on 25.01.2013.  The matter was brought to the notice of the OP on 25.01.2013. The OP sent engineer to repair the same after several days and the engineer could repair the compressor and informed the complainant that the compressor had to be taken back to the warehouse of OP. The engineer took the compressor on 12.02.2013.  The complainant has requested the OP to rectify the problem in the compressor but the OP has suggested the complainant to purchase a new compressor instead of repairing the compressor. The OP has kept the compressor with itself despite the complainant has requested to return the compressor to the complainant but in vain.
8. The complainant has paid the consideration of Rs.2,49,700/- for purchase of compressor for his use. The OP has not rectified the defects in the compressor and charged Rs.40,000/- for repair for compressor inspite of fact that the compressor was under warranty period. The compressor was again developed defects but the OP has not repaired the compressor inspite of repeated requests by the complainant. The OP has suggested the complainant for purchase of a new compressor as the old compressor has been damaged, beyond repairs and the compressor was still in warehouse of the OP. The OP has neither rectified the problem in the compressor nor refunded his money which clearly constitutes deficiency service and unfair trade practice on part of the OP.  If the OP could not have rectified the problem in the compressor then he should have refunded money to the complainant.
9. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.2,89,700/-(Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred) alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) as lumpsum for mental harassment and litigation charges  to the complainant within 45 days from date of receipt of order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @ 9% p.a.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 20.08.2024.