Haryana

StateCommission

A/27/2016

MINIMAX INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANGLAM POLYMERS - Opp.Party(s)

JAGDEEP SINGH

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       27 of 2016

Date of Institution:     11.01.2016

Date of Decision :      02.02.2017

 

M/s Minimax Industries, Manufacturer of Wire and Cable Machinries, 93, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi through its Proprietors and authorised signatories Sarv Shri Liyuakat/Yamin.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

M/s Manglam Polymers, Mewaka More Wazirpur, Pataudi Road, Gurgaon through its Proprietor Pawan Kumar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri J.S. Rana, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajesh Arora, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 26^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.480 of 2011.

2.                  Complainant-respondent purchased machinery for PVC Sleeve from M/s Minimax Industries-Opposite Party for Rs.11,25,060/- on 7^th April, 2011 vide invoice Annexure C-1. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the machine was having manufacturing defect and thus sought refund of price of the machine alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization.

3.                The Opposite Party-respondent did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

4.                Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs.11,25,060/-, that is, the price of the machine along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization; Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

5.                While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party has argued that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose and therefore the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

6.                Indisputably, the machine was purchased on 7^th April, 2011 and it was found defective during the warranty period. Legal Notice date 18^th July, 2011 (Annexure C-5) was issued to the opposite party but to no effect. Machinery may be run for commercial purpose but since the machine was within warranty, in view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is not tenable.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submitted that the machine is lying un-used since the day of its purchase.   

8.                Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party-appellant is directed to replace the machine with a new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant shall be liable to return the old machine in un-used condition, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Alternatively, the price of the machine shall be refunded alongwith interest as ordered by the District Forum. 

9.                     The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 02.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL