Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.48/04.08.2020
Ritu Lunkar, Proprietor,
Upahar Technologies Print & Publicity
75, Ground Floor, Rani Jhansi Road,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055
(see sub-paragraph 8.3. below) …Complainant
Versus
Minosha India Limited [formerly- Ricoh India Ltd]
7th, 11th Floor, Tower-B, Windsor IT Park, A-1,
Sector-125, Expressway, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-20130 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 04.08.2020
Coram: Date of Order: 18 07.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.17)
1.1. (Introduction to case/dispute of parties) –The complainant (a proprietorship firm namely Upahar Technologies Print & Publicity) has grievances, of (i) deficiency of services, (ii) unfair trade practice, (iii) product warranty and (iv) restrictive trade practices besides (a) monopolistic practice, (b) unfair contract, (c) product liability action etc. against OP/Minosha India Limited (formerly known as Ricoh India Ltd.) and that is why the complaint is filed for redressal of grievances.
1.2. The complainant had purchased Printing Machine Pro C 7100SX demo machine (hereinafter briefly referred as printing machine) against invoice of Rs. 42,48,000/- and complainant has to take premises on monthly rent basis for keeping and operating the machine besides other huge expenditure on infrastructure, on the advises of OP, to make the machine functional. The machine was defective, it was known to the OP but it was not disclosed, besides there were missing of various parts, shortcomings of necessary spare and parts; it were not fitted as and when requested, appropriate services were not provided, want of supply of toner despite requests, which kept the machine non-functional and idle. The complainant not only suffered huge amount in buying the machine, procuring the space and making basis infrastructure but also losses/her livelihood as well as a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment especially the machine was purchased by availing bank loan on interest. The contract of service of printing machine is unfair contact prepared by OP; its copy was not provided for long period despite requests by complainant.
1.3 The OP denies all allegations in the complaint on each count that neither there is any deficiency of services nor unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice or monopoly etc.. The spare and parts were provided from time to time as and when request was received; the toner was supplied on request also but yield was kept in view, besides to avoid misuse of the toner unlawfully, there were terms and conditions agreed between the parties and the same were complied with. The printing machine was purchased by the complainant of its own volition by placing purchase order and the machine was not defective, it was installed and the installation report was signed to the satisfaction of complainant, since machine was functional. There was no unfair contract entered. Under these circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed and OP cannot be put to any liability.
1.4 The sub-paragraph 1.2 & 1.3 above are the gist of case and dispute of the parties, it is introduced in the beginning so that there is a fair idea about the case of the parties. The reason for this introduction is that the pleadings of the parties (the complaint, its reply and then replication) and documentary records filed by the parties are voluminous, there is also repetition of facts, figures, dates, emails, etc. besides the contents of documents and the extracts/provisions of law has also been reproduced in the body of pleadings. In cumulative effect, the record became voluminous.
However, the minute detail is not need, so it is not going to be done but relevant and material facts will be narrated so that the case of parties is shown in its entirety. Further, during the pending of complaint, the OP had filed an application seeking directions to the complainant for copies of income-tax return, GST registration and GSTR and employees employed by the complainant, this application was allowed by Ld. Predecessors on 07.11.2022 and in compliance of directions, the complainant had filed record of GST and ITR.
With this introduction and background, now the case of parties is being taken
2.1. (Case of complainant) –The complainant is a proprietorship firm, it is engaged in the business of printing and publishing. The complainant is running and managing its proprietorship firm for her self-employment. The OP is sales and service partner of Ricoh Global India and it is engaged in business of selling wide range of production, printing machines and providing services in relation to maintenance of printing machines. The OP is a product seller under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
In order to earn her livelihood, the complainant purchased printing machine from OP. She is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and in Nandan Bio Metrix Ltd. Vs. S Ambika Devi and Ors. (2020) 3 CPC 857, it was held that a person buying the goods and using them for himself exclusively for the purposes of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment would be covered under the definition of consumer.
2.2. In December 2017, the OP sent its employee Shri Dheeraj Joshi to the office of complainant in order to sell production printing machine. The complainants husband Mr. Shreel Lunkar, on the instructions of complainant, met OP and the OP made favorable assertion and representation about the capability, ability and quality of goods and services provided by the OP. The complainant informed the OP that she is self-employed and intends to buy production printing machine to earn her livelihood. The OP shared information about few production printing machines and assured that it would serve purpose of complainant, but advised that existing office space was insufficient for keeping the production printing machine and it needs bigger space. The complainant relying upon such assurances of OP, it decided to purchase the production printing machine from OP and as such in January 2018 the complainant took office space on huge monthly rent of Rs. 31,860/- at 75, Ground Floor, Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. It was informed to OP. In third week of January 2018 the office was inspected by the OP and complainant had reiterated that the printing machine is being purchased to earn her livelihood. Thence, OP informed and explained the features of three printing machines but before purchasing any printing machine, it needs changing in the infrastructure of office premises as it requires compulsory installation of UPS, earthling, modification for dust free environment for smooth running of printing machine. The OP requested to inform it after required changes are done for the infrastructure.
The complainant had requested that it involves huge expenditure but OP countered it that the requirements are necessary, therefore, the complainant mobilized the financial resources and incurred amount of Rs. 6,38,000/- on such changes/modifications to make the premises viable for the machine. On 19.07.2018 OPs employee Sh. Anuj Gupta inspected the premises. to sell the production printing machine to the complainant and during meeting, the OP represented that it is assembling/selling wide range of production printing machines under brand name RICOH and it is also providing after sales and maintenance services for the printing machines.
2.3.1 The OP represented the complainant about Ricoh colour production printer Pro C7100X demo machine and also explained its features, performance and assured that it will suit the requirement of complainant and its price was mentioned as of Rs. 42,48,000/- and by believing the assertions of OP, the complainant agreed to buy Ricoh colour production printer Pro C7100X demo machine to earn her livelihood. On 20.07.2018 the OP sent mail to the complainant with pro-forma invoice Ricoh colour production printer Pro C7100X demo machine.
2.3.2 On 23.07.2018 the OP again represented telephonically and informed to complainant that it is having another printing machine Pro C7100SX demo machine, which is better as compared to Pro C7100X demo machine. The OP also explained features and performance of Pro C7100X demo machine and also made favourable assertion of capability and work quality to be generated by Pro C7100SX demo machine. When the complainant reiterated the purpose of buying the machine to earn her livelihood, the OP suggested to purchase Pro C7100SX demo machine, being sold for Rs. 42,48,000/-, that this machine will help the complainant in earning her livelihood. The OP also apprised that the machine will be delivered within 7 days after receipt of amount of Rs. 42,48,000/-. On 27.07.2018 the OP in order to win trust of the complainant, telephonically reiterated and represented to the complainant that Pro C7100SX demo machine is best machine and is also better than Pro C7100X demo machine, besides the service team of OP will visit the site after delivery of the machine.
Then complainant sent purchase order dated 30.07.2018 for purchase of printing machine Pro C7100SX demo machine along-with finisher + LCIT + fiery E43 + ES2000 + Multi bypass banner tray + MIU + fifth station up-gradation kit + white and clear developer and toner. Since huge amount was required for purchasing the printing machine, but the complainant was not having sufficient means to pay for purchasing the machine, the complainant was constraint to take bank loan for the payment of price of printing machine; the complainant paid Rs. 4 lakh on 07.08.2018 and Rs. 38,48,000/- on 14.08.2018 and total amount paid was Rs. 42,48,000/-.
2.4 After receipt of Rs. 42,48,000/-, the OP delivered printing machine on 07.09.2018 against invoice while assuring that it is the best machine and complainant will feel fully satisfy from the performance of the machine and quality of out-put.
Later, it shocked the complainant to know from the service engineer of OP that the printing machine is having manufacturing defect leading to very serious issue. The vital parts of the machine were also missing (they are enumerating in para 18 of the complaint). In fact, the complainant fell into the trap of OP by relying on representation and assurances regarding the printing machine given by OP since OP was knowing well that the printing machine was a defective machine and it will not able to meet the expectation of the complainant, who is self-employed and printing machine was purchased for earning livelihood. The complainant requested OP to make the printing machine to work perfectly by removing the defects, otherwise the complainant will seek damages along-with return of the money. The OP bluntly refused to remove the defects from the printing machine or to refund of the amount, the complainant was forced to retain defective printing machine for want of making it defect free by the OP. The complainant sent email dated 25.09.2018 about the defects and issues as well as apprising the OP as to how huge amount was spent to make the infrastructure, taking the premises on rent and bank loan for the machine besides other administrative cost, loss of business, customer and overhead expenditure of salary of an office assistant. It put a big interrogation mark on her livelihood. It was also discovered that many parts were missing in the printing machine (para 20 of the complaint enumerates names of 8 missing parts). The OP failed to take any steps to remove/resolve the defects in the printing machine. Moreover, there were other issues like print quality, double side printing feature were not working and part missing for duplex print besides paper was getting stuck and wastage. The OP was also informed that there is huge wastage of papers as more than 10% as against standard/contractual wastage of 1%. The paragraph 22 to 29 of the complaint enumerates such instances that the machine was having shortcomings, defects, missing of the parts, quality out-put issue, there were correspondence by emails touching such issues, however, the issues were not resolved and there was reoccurrence of same situation time and again. Moreover, the OP has tendered apology regarding issue of auto duplex by way of email dated 22.10.2018.
The paragraph 20 onwards also mentions other grievances of the complainant that on 18.03.2019 the OP was informed regarding issue of printing, scratch finisher 2 and tray were not being replaced despite request, issue of toner and for want of providing signed copy of maintenance service contract besides the service agreement was started from 25.09.2018 to 24.09.2019, whereas, the machine was not made defect free till 18.03.2019 but the OP asked for renew of service contract and charges for mono A3 print was Rs. 0.95 per impression and for colour A3 print was for Rs. 2.80 per impression and wastage count is 1%.
The OP deliberately withheld the copy of maintenance service agreement for period of 6 months approximately and it was sent after much persuasions. In fact, maintenance service was required for defect free printing machine and not for maintenance of defective machine; to say the service agreement should have been for fully operational machine, having no defect but OP acted contrary to it and started the period of agreement from the date even when machine was not defect free. On 19.03.2019 the OP sent email that top cover which is having scratch mark shall be replaced.
2.5 The subsequent paragraph upto paragraph 39 narrates are other events took place either the supply of toner was withheld for considerable long time or seeking replacement of fuser cleaner unit or correspondence between the parties to resolve those issues. The paragraph 43 to 45, 46, 48 to 58 reiterates its grievances with regard to parts, service, toner, etc. that OP failed to resolve the issues from time to time. The printing machine is still not defect free and it has been sold under the guise of a defect free machine after taking huge amount of Rs.42,48,000/-. It has caused immense harassment to the complainant. The printing machine came with warranty of 5 years +1 year + 1 year = 7 year given by the OP.
2.6 The complainant has also grievances regarding GST credit remained unsolved for considerable long time, since the OP had issued invoice for purchase of printing machine but it was not reflected on GST portal, consequently complainant was unable to take in-put credit of GST paid to the OP; the complainant also wrote emails dated 24.09.2019 and 28.09.2019.
2.7 The complainant has also compiled facts and extracts from the Consumer Protection Act from paragraph 59 onwards under different heading to show that there is unfair trade practice, deficiency of services, product warranty and monopoly practice, product liability action, unfair contract, losses suffered to emphasis that complainant being consumer is entitled for either replacement of defective printing machine or for refund of Rs. 42,48,000/-; refund of Rs.6,38,000/- spent on infrastructure of office, refund of Rs. 9,59,698/- on account of rent of the premises and further rent till disposal of the complaint, refund of Rs. 8,90,464/- paid to bank as interest on the loan, damages for Rs. 15 lakh for loss of livelihood and business, compensation of Rs. 10 lakh in lieu of harassment and agony due to unfair trade practice, deficiency of services, interest at the rate of 18%pa on amount of refund and compensation, cost of litigation and other relief.
2.8 The complaint is accompanied with copies of – pro-forma invoice of first machine, purchase order and invoice dated 07.09.2018 in respect of printing machine, emails from 25.09.2018 to 22.05.2020 between the parties from time to time.
3.1 (Case of OP)-The OP does not dispute sale of the printing machine to the complainant against invoice and payment of consideration amount but OP denies all other allegations imputed against it, the gist thereof has already been introduced in paragraph 1.3 above.
3.2. The complaint is not maintainable as complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(7) of the Act 2019 since the printing machine was purchased and used by the complainant for commercial purposes; it was never bought and used exclusively for livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant is registered under GST with GST IN-07ACTPL4918P1ZP (and paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections reproduces master data detail available on official website). The nature of business activities mentioned are whole sale business, factory/manufacturing, warehouse/depot, office/sale office, retail business, retail contract. The complainant deals in maintenance or repair service, IT or software service and commercial training and coaching under the description of the services. The perusal of data retrieve from the official website manifests that complainant is not a consumer. It has also sought relief of Rs. 15 lakhs as loss of livelihood and business, she does not come under the purview of consumer.
The complaint has been filed in the name of sole proprietorship but it is not a legal entity and complaint as such is bad under law, the name Upahar Technologies Print and Publicity is a trade name. Moreover, Smt. Ritu Lunkar, proprietor of complaint firm has no locus standi to file the complaint, since she is neither privy nor witness to any of the dealings/transactions with the OP. None of the communications/emails were issued either by her or addressed by her but Sh. Shreel Lunkar has been dealing throughout. The installation report or 4C service agreement does not bear signature of complainant but of Sh. Shreel Lunkar. The said Smt. Ritu Lunkar surfaced all of a sudden in the complaint, therefore, she has no locus standi. In addition, it is also appearing that the printing machine was in fact used by another person for commercial purposes for the business run by him, it is not a case of earning of livelihood by way of self-employment as alleged. The conduct of complainant is contrary to the ratio of law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (AIR 1995 SC 1948) Smt. Ritu Lunkar proprietor is just rubber stamp and she has never been party to any of the events or transactions.
There is no expert report from recognized and notified laboratory in respect of printing machine, therefore, the complaint is carrying vague and baseless allegations of defective machine. The other allegations of deficiency of services restrictive trade practice, breach of warranty, unfair trade practice etc. are also not tenable. There is no cause of action since perfect machine with warranty was sold to the complainant and after sale services were also extended appropriately from time to time, the machine was also functioning properly and yielding optimum qualitative product. The OP has prerogative to price its product as per current market conditions as well as to maintain demand & supply of its product to suit the need of market. The OP has to insure supply of toner and to ensure that the product is not being used illegally and for unlawful purposes, the toners are provided by the OP based upon previous yield given by a customer. The complaint does not satisfy the requirement of restrictive trade practice or other components of law to make liable the OP under any of heads.
3.3 The complainant has wrongly asserted about termination of service agreement, whereas, the service agreement executed had commenced on 25.09.2018 and it was to expire on 24.09.2019, however, the OP had requested the complainant for renewal of service agreement for another 12 months for uninterrupted service but complainant took time to take decision and keeping in view that fact, the service agreement was extended for a short period so that in between complainant may take the decision, it was extended till 24.11.2019. The agreement expired on 24.11.2019 by efflux of time and it was not terminated by the OP. In fact, the complainant is silent about outstanding dues payable towards the use of services under the service agreement and the amount due and payable is of Rs. 90,527.90p towards the uses of services. The complainant raised the demand by email dated 25.11.2019 and in order to counter blast it, false allegations have been made.
3.4 In addition, the complainant was shown the available machines prior to purchase of machjine and the complainant made specific order for the subject printing machine, it was choice of the complainant and the same was never forced upon the complainant to buy it. The complainant is twisting the facts to self-serve its purposes. Moreover, the machine was installed and installation report was also signed that too after satisfying with its installation, functioning and performance. The OP did not supply defective machine.
The complainant is not a consumer, since when the machine was purchased, the complainant was already earning her livelihood, irrespective of purchase of printing machine, therefore, the machine was purchased for expanding her business to earn more profits and it was not exclusively for earning livelihood.
Further, the complainant was aware that the printing machine is a demo machine, which is already used machine and not a new machine. The new printing machine costs around Rs. 75 lakhs but the subject printing machine was sold to the complainant for Rs. 36 lakhs + 18% GST, which is almost 50% of the brand new machine; the main reason is that the said machine was a demo unit and complainant was aware of it. It was bought out of her own volition.
However, because of bigger size of machine, it was requiring particular measures to be taken before its installation and the complainant was accordingly wisely advised for pre-requisite for installing the printing machine, it included adequate space to accommodate the machine and other requirements for better functioning and enhanced productivity. Moreover, the intent of OP was that in case she goes ahead with buying the printing machine, the existing space will not be adequate for the machine, that is why the complainant was made aware of the requirements. The complainant took the premises at 75 Ground Floor, Rani Jhanshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi and from the record of email dated 18.03.2019 and 28.09.2019 it is evident that complainant is having possession of both the offices. The complainant took the office space at Jhandewalan for expanding business and to serve her bigger objectives of business activities and to accommodate the printing machine. The OP has no role or liability in case the premises was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 31,860/- or mobilizing the amount of Rs. 6,38,000/- or otherwise spent on the infrastructure.
3.5 As per complainants own case the new office space was taken on rent in January 2018 after visit of OPs representative in December 2017, however, purchase order was given on 30.07.2018 after about 6 months from taking the premises on rent. It also shows that complainant was already willing and prepared to open new office to expand her business.
3.6 The complainant denies all other allegations of complaint with regard to spares, parts etc by explaining that complete services were rendered to the complainant from time to time and on one occasion the apology was tendered just out of courtesy in the email but the same is being twisted by the complainant. The OP has also arranged to replace of some of the parts of machine, which was necessitated due to normal wear and tear arising in demo machine. The issues were ancillary in nature, having no material effect in the functioning of printing machine, replacement of ancillary part did not lead to breakdown of the machine. In fact, the complainant wanted to obtain out of simplification output, for which no readymade solution are available; it be a technical issue, which require manipulation with the engine, therefore, the same was even escalated to the technical support team for its resolution. The OP has rendered its services on regular basis that too at the satisfaction of complainant, the service calls record are manifesting it. The problem of paper jamming and back to back registration were attended and resolved by the engineer the service call report dated 27.11.2018, which also bears satisfying remarks. The written statement also responses all the allegations of complaint stating that they were routine issues which were duly attended and resolved. Moreover, on 25.05.2019 the meter reader of colour print out and black & white print out stood at 1,38,55 and 14,433 against previous reading of 61,118 and 2,827 as on 27.11.2018, which shows that printing machine was not only functioning properly but also it was put to its optimum use.
With regard to supply of toner, generally norm is followed across the sector and by all the manufacturers of the printing machine of this nature, the demand of the toner prescribed or rationed in terms of the standard yield of the toner. The said rationing is needed to curb the inadequate, mis-utilization and unnecessary stocking of the toner by the purchaser and consequently to preserve the interest of the seller. The OPs email dated 18.03.2019 clarifies the reason for the cancellation of the complainants request and the same reads that As far as toner request is concerned, it got cancelled by our customer care due to less yield. Lasts 3 set of toners gave average yield of 49K print (standard yield of 1 set is around 24K prints). Although the last toner set gave yield of around 21K prints. However, despite less yield of the toner by the caused by the complainant , the OP issued one set of toner on the same very day considering concern and good relation with the complainant. The scratched finisher door and the tray was result of improper handling and failure to upkeep the printing machine in improper manner by the complainant. The wastage was because of mishandling or mis-utilization the printing machine, it cannot be attributed against the OP.
The complainant was sold printing machine in fully operational and complainant had also used the machine to the best of its capacity, the OP has attended the complaint, spares, replacement and other services warranted from time to time, however, a minor detail in resolving some of the issues would not render the machine defective. Moreover, such minor issues were result of normal wear and tear, which are bound to occur with the uses of the machine. In addition, the OP also attempted to mislead the Commission by painting facts is as much as Mr. R. K. Bawa, top representative of OP. The complainant is aware about the time and conditions of service agreement, in fact complainant was happy with the terms and conditions of the agreement and printing machine was not in warranty of 5+1+1=7 year. The OP is a brand name to reckon with and the brand name is attend by the OP because of its high quality products and customer oriented services. No case of product liability or of other tenor are made out, vis-à-vis as per clause 19-C of the service agreement, which pertains to limitation of liability, which reads as Ricoh shall not be liable in any manner whatsoever to indemnify the customer for any loss or injury or liquidated damages of any kind whatsoever, howsoever caused, by or in connection with the equipment, use of equipment or its state of repair. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.7 The reply is accompanied with master data in respect of business activity of complaint, 4C service agreement w.e.f 25.09.2019 to 24.11.2019, service call report and engineers service reports from time to time, tax invoice, email and copy of resolution dated 12.09.2020.
4. (Replication of complainant) – The complainant filed detailed rejoinder to the reply of OP. There are two components of the rejoinder, firstly each and every averment of the complaint are reaffirmed as correct. Secondly, the complainant has tendered reply to the allegations of written statement by explaining that the complainant is a consumer, the printing machine was purchased to earn livelihood by self-employment, the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint, the printing machine sold against invoice to the complainant was discovered defective, having shortcomings as well as requiring frequent services and replacement but it remained defective and never come out to those latent defects. The OP itself failed to furnish expert opinion that the machine was complete, fine and free from defects. The GST registration of complainant firm is general in nature to depict the functions to be carried, it was requirement of rules and OP cannot derive any benefit by its own meanings. The apology was tendered because shortcomings and defects could not be rectified and OP cannot escape from its liability nor it would give concession that apology was out of courtesy. The OP is trying to carry R&D at the costs of complainant but it is not permissible. The printing machine, service contact and its condition, supply of spares and materials etc are imposed by the OP. The complaint is valid and competent, the OP is liable for all claim as claimed. This is the gist of rejoinder.
5.1. (Evidence)- In order to prove the complaint, the complainant Ms. Ritu Lunkar, proprietor M/s Upahar Technologies Print & Publicity, filed her detailed affidavit with the support of all documentary record filed with the complaint, this detailed affidavit is blend of pleading and documents.
5.2. The OP also led its evidence through its representative Sh. Kailash Chandra, Field Finance Controller, his affidavit is supported with power of attorney to lead evidence on behalf of OP and the affidavit is also on the lines of reply coupled with supporting documents.
6.1 (Final hearing)-The complainant and the OP were given opportunity to file their written arguments, both of them also filed written arguments in detail. The written arguments of the complainant are in narrative but paragraphs have been split in terms of grievances. Similarly, the OP has also filed written arguments under certain headings to oppose the complaint as well as to support its own case. The parties have also referred decided cases/case law. The written arguments being in detail and the case law will be referred appropriately point-wise so that rival contentions are put together and are appreciated appropriately.
However, it is not out of context to mention that OP has taken various points in the written statement but while filing the written arguments, contrary stand is taken on many points, it nullifies its own case on those points.
6.2 Moreover, the parties are also given opportunity to make oral submissions, therefore, Sh. Arvind Sehrawat & Sh. Navneet Duggal, Advocates for complainant and Sh. Ankit Jain, Advocate for OP presented the oral submissions; the representatives of both the sides were personally present during the phase of arguments.
7. (Findings) - The contentions of both the sides are considered while keeping in view the voluminous material of and in documentary record, the oral narration of the parties in affidavits of evidence, the cases/decisions referred. Since, there are many points - from the point of locus standi of the complainant to the other points of functioning of the machine - it would be appropriate to decide them point-wise.
8.1 (whether or not the complaint was properly instituted/arrayed and the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint) –The OP has two-fold submissions, firstly the name of complainant as arrayed in the complaint is of firm/trade name, which is not recognized by the law since proprietorship firm is not a legal entity to be so arrayed; secondly, throughout in the transactions with the OP, the complainant never dealt with the OP but her husband, even the emails were also not by the complainant. The installation report and service agreement were also not signed by the complainant but by her husband, without having any authority. The machine was being used by person other than complainant. Therefore, neither there is privy of contract between the parties to complaint nor Smt Ritu Lunkar has any locus standi to file the complaint nor the complaint was properly arrayed and instituted.
This contention is opposed by the complainant that the plea of OP is contrary to the law, since Smt. Ritu Lunkar is proprietor of the firm, the emails and transactions were done by and in the name of complainant and her husband was also authorized to assist and do needful for and on behalf of complainant, it would not bar to file the complaint nor the complaint becomes invalid. The proprietor is synonymous to the firm. The complainant has been using the machine and not by other person.
8.2. The answer of this point is in the record itself. However, it is not out of context to mention that OP is taking inconsistent stand in the written statement and in the final written arguments, what was objected in the written statement has not been stated so in the final written arguments, in fact contrary to the objection in the written statement.
The purchase order dated 30.07.2018 (Exh. CW1/1) was by Mrs. Ritu Lunkar as proprietor of the firm and tax invoice dated 07.09.2018 (Exh. CW1/3) is issued by OP in the name of proprietorship firm. The emails correspondences (Exh. CW1/1 & Exh. CW1/4 onwards) are between the OP and the firm or its proprietor. The installation report (at page no. 62 of the paper book) is under the seal and signature of complainant firm, The name of complainants husband Mr. Shreel Lunkar is mentioned as the person who has been trained at the time of installation of printing machine and he had signed it. It is never the case of OP that consideration for selling the machine was not received from the complainant/complainant firm. Therefore, the contentions of OP are not acceptable that there is no privy of contract between the parties or complainant lacks locus standi to file the complaint.
8.3 There is substance in contentions of OP to the extent that a proprietorship firm is not a legal entity alike an artificial person or a body incorporated under the Companies Act. It happens that the name of proprietorship firm or name of proprietor are mentioned inter-changeably but it was OP who had issued the tax invoice in the name of firm against purchase order placed by Ms Ritu Lunkar, proprietor of the firm. The complaint is filed by proprietor Ms. Ritu Lunkar under her signature and seal for firm Upahar Technologies Print & Publicity. But it would not non-suit the complaint. Accordingly, this contention is disposed off, however, in the title of name this Order name of Ms. Ritu Lunkar is prefixed as proprietor of Upahar Technologies Print & Publicity is mentioned [to make it proper by invoking Order I Rule 10 (1) CPC (as guidance there-from)].
9.1.1. (whether or not complaint is bad for want of expert opinion) – The OP has also raised another point that in order to ascertain the defect in the printing machine the complainant was bound to obtain expert opinion and for want of such opinion, it cannot be held that machine was having any defect. Otherwise, the printing machine was without any defect, it was installed and operational. Was there any manufacturing defects in the printing machine?, the onus of proving it was on the complainant and not on the OP. The complainant has neither led any expert evidence nor requested to invoke the powers of this Commission u/s 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant failed to discharge its burden of proof of any manufacturing defect in the prining machine. The OP refers, in its support, decided cases namely (1) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Hasmuch Lakshmichand and Ors. [2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 74].(2) Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors. |2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 144], (3) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. |(2006) 4 SCC 644], (4) Classic Automobiles VS. Lila Nand Mishra and Ors. (MANU/CF/0086/2009] and (5) Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Lid. and Anr. vs. Tirath Singh Oberoi |2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2620.
Further, the complainant was knowing well that it was not new machine but used demo machine, it cost the complainant for about 50% of brand new machine and complainant had purchased it out of her own volition that too after considering its features etc. Otherwise, the emails dated 21.10.2018 and 22.10.2018 manifests that issue cropped in the normal course of functioning. Similar was the position in respect of other day of day normal functioning, wear and tear, which were appropriately attended, serviced and resolved by OP. The OP also derives reasons from Negi Sign System and Supplies Co. (RV.2677/2015, para-7 NC) that replacement of identified defective part was held proper instead of refund of amount of price of printing machine.
9.1.2. But the complainant has reservations to the plea of OP, firstly – when the OP asserts that the printing machine was defect free, it was to be certified by such declaration or opinion of the expert that the printing machine was defect free; it has not been done by OP. Secondly- the OP is taking contradictory stand that on the one side, it is stated the machine was defect free and on the other side obligation is being shifted towards the complainant, it is not acceptable. The expert opinion was not warranted in the situation since the circumstances are speaking themselves from the contemporary record of repeated complaints, emails, assurances given to do at the earliest and so on.
9.2 Again, the answer of this point is in the cases of both parties. It is fact that there is no certification on behalf of OP of any expert opinion nor any expert opinion was sought by either side to ascertain the status of defect in the printing machine, nor it is case of complainant that complaint cannot be determined in the absence of laboratory test or other analysis. However, the case of parties is that the printing machine is a demo machine. The OP also asserts it is a used machine. The demonstration machine may be simply that it was kept in show case for view of prospective buyer and to understand the features. It may also be that not only the machine was kept for demonstration but also see its use or working to show how commands are given, how it functions, sounds, its yield, how other information/data are generated/exhibited when output is generated, and so on. For example, in the show room of cars, demonstrated car is kept for exhibitions as well as for test drive, which actually put the car to use also.
The installation report gives meter reading of colour print out as well as blank and white print out. The printing machine was also already being used. Where the machine was actually demonstrated is not in evidence. Thus, when the machine is already being used besides a demo machine, which was also handled during such demonstration; it is not a brand new machine, then how the expert opinion would be tenable for used machine?. Generally, expert opinion may be sought when new machine is purchased/sold but defects symptoms vis a vis it not the case of sale of printing machine by OP on as is where is basis. The OP intends to project that the machine was sold at about 50% price against new machine vis a vis it is not the case of OP that it had sold the machine at such price by bearing losses or otherwise. The price tag is reciprocal for both the sides. It is also not the case of parties that in the absence of Laboratory test or expert opinion, the matter cannot be decided. Therefore, it would not non-suit the complaint for want of expert opinion or other test/analysis under the situation of present case. This contention is also disposed off.
10.1 (whether or not complainant is a consumer) –Both the complainant and the OP have been maintaining their rival stand. According to complainant, she is a consumer as printing machine was purchased to earn livelihood as self-employed. The complainant firm is registered under GST and her husband was assisting in the affairs of complainant firm, but the same is being twisted and exploited by the OP by asserting that since the complainant is already registered under GST Act/Rules, it infers the machine was not purchased for livelihood purposes under self-employment but for expanding business activities that too by taking the large size premises on rent to accommodate the machine. In fact, the alternate premises was taken on rent on the advises of OP and its officials, since it was told that printing machine will not be accommodated and effectively function in the existing premises of smaller size. Moreover, the OP was repeatedly told that machine was being purchased for earning livelihood by the complainant and it was also reminded on subsequent occasions, when the premises was being searched and located for machine was to be installed vis-à-vis the OP assured that it would serve the purpose of complainant. The complainant relies upon Rohit Chaudhary and Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 5858/2015 dod 06.09.2023], wherein it was illustrated that a person who purchases a lathe machine or offer machine to operate it himself for earning the livelihood would a consumer [in case th buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not ceases to be a consumer). The complainant also relies upon Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs M/s Unique Shanti Developers and anr (2019 14 SCR 563), wherein it was discussed and held that whether or not a person is consumer? or whether an activity is meant for commercial purposes will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case?
But OP has juxtaposition stand that the printing machine was purchased by the complainant of her own volition, although it was advised that proper space with basic infrastructure would be required to install the machine; it was a prudent information and advice to avoid all of sudden problem to complainant to install machine. The complainant was already registered entity under GST for various activities, the complainant was already self-employed and earning her livelihood, therefore, the printing machine was purchased for gaining profits and to expand the business and its activities to earn more profits. At no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the printing machine was purchased exclusively for earning livelihood under self-employment. The master data generated from the official website also reflects business activities as well as additional places of business, which infers that complainant is involved in expanding the business scale. It is admitted case of the complainant that it is carrying on the business of manufacturing/printing; thus purchase of the printing machine and its deployment has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity. The complainant is not covered within the definition of consumer, therefore, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not maintainable. The OP relies upon Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank (2022) 5 SCC 42] wherein the following was held-
50. It is thus clear, that this Court has held that the question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, commercial purpose is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary. It has further been held that if the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and the consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, then the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of generating livelihood by means of self-employment need not be looked into.
10.2.1 The case of both the sides are considered. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that in the written statement, the OP does not recognizes the complainant by stating that in fact the machine was being used for business activities by someone else, however, in the written arguments, it is stated contrary to it by the OP by stating that it is complainant who is using the printing machine for business purposes and for expanding the business activities, however, not for the purposes of earning livelihood. It has already been held that the complaint is valid and the complainant is competent to file the complaint. With this preliminary observation on this point, the further discussion is being carried forward.
10.2.2 On plain comparative study of submission and counter submission of the parties, the case of OP on this issue is that complainant has already been operating the business and earning the livelihood under self-employment, therefore, acquiring the subject printing machine is to add it to the existing business for the purposes to make large scale business; especially the complainant is registered for GST and there are many other activities in which complainant is involved. The case and intend of complainant is that it would not matter if the complainant is already operating the business, the printing machine was purchased for the same purposes and it would not mean that by acquiring printing machine would change the scenario from earning livelihood to other purposes. The OP is being swayed away with the official data but in fact it is pertaining to the same field as well as for earning livelihood.
10.2.3 On further observation at the record, it is manifest that both the parties are looking to the situation from their own prospective by dissecting the facts and circumstances. The other way to look upon the situation is to take into account all such facts and circumstances together. As already stated that OP had moved an application, which was considered and allowed by order dated 07.11.2022 and in compliance of directions given, the complainant had filed its ITR for assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 besides GST forms. In the ITR of 2021-22 the complainants total income was Rs. 7,81,130/- and net tax payable was Rs. 71,474/-. The other ITR of 2020-21 shows the total income was Rs. 9,27,900/- and net tax payable was Rs. 1,02,006/-. These ITR are subsequent to purchase of the printing machine on 09.07.2018. This clearly shows that complainants income was an individual income pursuant to her business activities and it does not reflect income in higher bracket, being an attempt to demonstrate so, on behalf of OP on the basis of GST registration. The complainants engineer or officials had an occasion to visit the site and spot either during inspection of the office space or otherwise while attending the service calls, there is no evidence on behalf of OP that complainant was operating her business activities from different locations as stated in the written statement. There is also no contrary evidence on behalf of OP that the complainant was operating large scale establishment with the employment of number of persons or having big business income and buying of printing machine would expand that range of income. The printing machine purchased was to perform alike the existing functioning of complainant being in the same field. Therefore, by applying the ratio of law laid down in Shrikant G. Mantri (supra), the intent of complainant is manifesting that the printing machine was bought to add to her existing establishment in order to earn the livelihood. It is also clear that the complainant had purchased the printing machine for the purposes of her establishment, which was already registered under GST, to earn her livelihood. Lastly, the term livelihood is not defined in the Act, 2019, thus external aid of dictionary/ordinary meaning may be taken, which includes securing the basic necessity of life (viz. food, water, shelter etc) and income sufficient and to live on, or the means of earning. Livelihood (noun) , a means of supporting ones existence especially financially or vocationally, living to earn a livelihood. It also includes the resources and activities that provide a source of income or sustenance for an individual and/or their family It is held that complainant is a consumer.
In Rohit Chaudhary case (supra) the definition of consumer, commercial purposes and explanation appended were under consideration. It was discussed and held that commercial purposes must be understood as covering cases other than those resale of the goods. The appellant therein was in the business of caustic soda as a dealer of M/s Reliance Industries and presently engaged in the business of investment/dealing in property, besides the pleaded that they were searing the office space for their self-employment and to run their business and earn their livelihood. The appeal was allowed in favour of consumer. The features of present complaint are not exception to it and ratio of that decision applies. This contention is also disposed off.
11.1 (whether the printing machine was forced upon the complainant or was it out of own volition of complainant) Both the parties have their own plea as well as documentary record. The complainants case is that initially the complainant was sold Pro C 7100X machine but later-on the OP called the complainant and advised for purchasing printing machine Pro C 7100SX demo machine, it was purchased by the complainant.
11.2 Since, the complainant itself had placed purchase order for the printing machine, thereafter, against that purchase order the printing machine was purchased, although the price for both the machine was same. Moreover, it also the case of complainant that before purchase of printing machine, three machines were shown and discussed. Therefore, the documentary record of purchase order and invoice do not bring home the case of complainant that the machine was forced upon the complainant. This contention is also disposed off.
12.1 (regarding replacement of parts, services, warranty, service agreement, deficiency of services, unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice) – Both the sides have their own stand as on the one side the complainant has grievance that firstly, printing machine was provided with missing part, shortcomings etc. and later-on the machine was frequently non-functioning either because of want of timely service or replacement of parts, that is why there was continuous correspondence with the OP. Moreover, the toner was not being provided in time, which result into loss of income to the complainant. The OP has also apologized on one of the occasion but the OP shield itself under the garb that it was courtesy expression but in fact it shows mala-fide and actual intention of OP. The service contract entered ought to operational from the time when the machine was OK and in order to meet day to day need, the services are required but the OP started the service agreement from the date of purchase of machine and further asked for renew of service agreement that too higher service charges, when the machine was frequently non-performing and non-functioning properly. The toner was also not being provided, which had affected adversely yield/production for want of timely supply and in fact by making monopoly and restrictions on such spares, toners and services, the OP has controlled the activities, functioning of machine and of establishment of complainant. This manifests deficiency of services, unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice on the part of OP.
Whereas, according to OP nothing is like this as stated on behalf of complainant. the machine was purchased out of own volition, the service agreement was also entered between the parties and OP had attended all the calls for services from the inception of installation of machine onward. The service agreement was for specified period correlated with the tenure and specifications, there was compliance by the OP in its letter in sprit. Since the service agreement had expired, it was to be extended and that is why new agreement was to be executed, however, the complainant had taken time to take decision and that is why the existing agreement was extended for two months period. The machine was performing well but toner was being supplied as per the performance vis-à-vis to supervise that there is no unlawful activities. It cannot be construed deficiency of services or monopoly or restricted trade practices. There is no merit in the complaint.
12.2. By taking into consideration all the matters and its analysis, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The printing machine purchased by the complainant is not new branch machine but demo used machine vis-à-vis it was also not sold by the OP on the basis of as is where is basis. The tax invoice and other record do not reflect age of the machine except the number of printed pages/output already produced from the machine.
(ii) The machine was installed on 25.09.2018 after its delivery at the premises of complainant on 06.09.2018. The OP has taken stand that installation report refers that the machine has been installed with all accessories and is working satisfactorily, there was no defect or deficiency and that is why it was signed on the part of complainant to its satisfaction.
However, the complainant has proved email dated 25.09.2018 (Exch. CW1/4/at page no. 55) that there were shortcomings and accessories were missing for which OP was requested to make them complete and for want of doing needful, further correspondence took place on 21.10.2018 and 22.10.2018; then OP has expressed sincere apology thereof. Therefore, it shows that installation report is in the prescribed standard format of OP and the email exchanged reflects that accessories were not complete and the same were requested to be completed, the OP has expressed its sincere apology. The matter printed on installation report is not conclusive proof in view of other facts emerging and proved. It will also not be out of context to mention that OPs stand in written statement is that apology was just out of curtsey, if so then it reflects the casual attitude of OP and its officials that in complainant was in trouble and in order to solace, false pretext of apology was mentioned. Whereas, things are different, the complainant was confronted with grave situation of short-coming, spares etc, it was pointed out to the OP and the OP had actually realized the gravity of situation, under that scenario, apology was tendered. It is also apparent, that OP changes its stand as per own convenience, as many objections taken in the written statement or evidence were negated by itself in the written arguments.
(iii) The continuous correspondence between the parties reflect that it was a usual and frequent episode requiring either to supply missing parts, services or replacement of parts or requesting for toner, it happened that the machine was not completely healthy.
(iv) The OP gives reason for control over the toner that it may not be used illegally or unlawfully, it is not acceptable since not only the yield is metered and correspondingly OP has regular information of the yield besides service agreement to do needful service to the machine. For want of supply of toner, it will definitely stop the production by the machine vis-à-vis the machine was requiring frequent visits of the serviceman to attend deficiency, replacement etc. What will be illegal or unlawful use, it is mystery on the part of OP?
(v) The OP has two-fold plea - on the one side that the printing machine was giving optimum yield and on the other side the toner was denied for want of requisite/optimum printouts. Both cannot go together, otherwise nowhere in the record the OP has suggested a particular quantity of yield to be called the optimum output.
(vi) The OP has attended the calls for services and there are also meter reading of productions, however, had there been no shortcomings or deficiency of parts, the OP was not required to frequently assured for completion of shortcomings or spares or missing parts or scratched parts.
The OP is also taking stand that some of the yield was effected adversely because of mishandling of the machine, however, no such observation was mentioned in the service reports nor otherwise proved by the OP, especially OPs witness Sh. Kailash Chandra, Field Finance Controller led the evidence as an Attorney of OP, however, he has no personal knowledge about the state of affairs of working of printing machine, its output, its shortcomings, quality of product, or services done.
The aforementioned conclusion makes out no other opinion than to hold that the complainant had purchased the printing machine from the OP and it was installed by the OP but the machine was having many shortcomings either of spares or of missing of parts, which were attended by the OP from time to time but the machine was not completely made functional to give its output as assured at the time of buying the machine. This complaint is under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which is a departure from the erstwhile the Consumer Protection Act 1986 from the concept of caveat emptor to vendor emptor. The OP was supposed to disclose to the complainant about the shortcomings of the machine either in respect of its hardware or performance or otherwise, especially the complainant was not able to know about them nor it has technique to know them, and that is why when the machine was installed complainants husband was trained by the service engineer. Therefore, it is held that there have been shortcomings, deficiency, faults and imperfection in the potency or standard required to be maintained for the machine sold to the complainant as well as after sale services required either during warranty or service agreement. The OP cannot derive any benefit by virtue of 19-C of the service agreement [Ricoh shall not be liable in any manner whatsoever to indemnify the customer for any loss or injury or liquidated damages of any kind whatsoever, howsoever caused, by or in connection with the equipment, use of equipment or its state of repair] since the present complaint is arising from special piece of codified consumer law, it is out of creation of statue and not just contract between the parties. There is no estoppels against law.
13.1 [The remaining points of (a) monopolistic practice, (b) unfair contract, (c) product liability action against OP]- There are a few other points on (a) monopolistic practice, (b) unfair contract, (c) product liability action and (e) others against OP, the same are being taken one by one under sub-paragraphs.
13.2 The complainant has grievances of monopolistic trade practice against OP that in order to control over the business activities of complainant, certain rider were put either regarding supply of toner or warranty would stand withdrawn in case services or parts are purchased from outside the market, which may be affecting many others buyers of machines too. But OP has denied it.
However, there used to be the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1969, dealing with the subjects under its headings. However, in the year 2002 the legislature repealed the Act, 1969 by replacing with the Competition Act, 2002 to prevent practice having adverse effect on the consumers (ie. monopolistic practice) and to promote and sustain competition in the market (for the interest of consumers). Simultaneously, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended by introducing section 2(nnn) definingrestrictive trade practice and section 2(r) defining unfair trade practice. In the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 there is provisions of restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice respectively defined in section 2(41) and (47). Thus, the plea of complainant regarding monopolistic practices against OP is not within the jurisdiction of this Consumer For a/Commission but under the Competition Commission of India, another regulatory Authority.
13.3. The complainant has also pleaded her case against OP of unfair contract because of its covenant, service charges, yield, etc. The unfair contract is defined u/s 2(46) of the Act, 2019. However, when relief in respect of unfair contract is to be sought either expressly or impliedly, the jurisdiction lies with the State Consumer Dispute Redress al Commission (Section 47 of the Act, 2019) and with National Consumer Dispute Redress al Commission (Section 58 of the Act, 2019); no such jurisdiction lies with the District Consumer Dispute Redress al Commission. It cannot be determined by this Commission.
It is within the discretion of parties, whether or not, to go for new service agreement between them.
13.4. The complainant has also cited its case of product liability case alongwith other relief in respect of printing machine/goods. The product liability action is defined in section 2 (35) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which defines complaint filed by a person before a District Commission or State Commission or National Commission as the case may be for claiming compensation for the harm caused to him. Further, harm is also defined u/s 2 (22) of the Act 2019 and injury is defined u/s 2 (23) of the Act 2019. The harm (damage to property other than product itself or personal injury etc.) has to be in relation with use of product and then injuries as defined consequent to use of that product, but it is not the case of complainant .To say, the complainant pleaded the case by narrating the facts and circumstances, however, those circumstances do not fit into product liability action. The complainant could not prove case of product liability action.
13.5. The complainant has produced record of GST that OP failed to deposit the tax under GST with the authorities to claim credit, however, in the prayer clause there is no such request to formulate it. Otherwise, the entire complaint pertains to printing machine, its functioning etc. and GST was an allied issue between the parties for appropriate compliances or non-compliances.
Accordingly, such points are also disposed off.
14.1 So, in view of detailed analysis, discussion and conclusions drawn, it is held that it a case of purchase of used/demo machine knowingly by the complainant from the OP, the OP had ensure warranty thereof, however, its many parts were missing, short-comings, frequent complaints for service, which were attended by the OP either timely or otherwise, besides tender of apology by the OP as a gesture to resolve the issues. Simultaneously, the meter readings and out-put sheet also reflect that printing machine was yielding and it is not case of completely bread-down of machine nor that a single fault was repeating. The issues are subsisting. As appearing, the machine may be giving symptoms of its old age or use. Thus, the shortcoming, faults, etc. can be attended by appropriate replacement or repairs or services; it does not make out case of replacement of printing machine or refund of price amount of machine. It is also relevant to mention that the OP is in field of sales and service [being partner of Ricoh Global India]. it is also engaged in business of selling wide range of production, printing machines and providing services in relation to maintenance of printing machines. It would not be difficult but practical for OP to make the machine functional properly to the stage of installation on 25.09.2018 after purchase of machine by complainant from OP.
14.2. Therefore, the OP is directed to remove all short-comings either of missing parts, spares, servicing the machine, replacements of appropriate parts, so that the printing machine is in position akin to date when the machine was installed (on 25.09.2018), without charging any amount from the complainant on any count of spares, parts, services, The OP is given 41 days period from today to complete it, during working hours (subject to consent of parties in writing beyond working hours of day or on other than day time or other than working day) and the complaint will cooperate it. The OP will furnish appropriate report on completing of task to the Commission for record purposes besides copy to the complainant and complainant will also acknowledge in writing on completion of task.
However, in case OP does not comply it fully or partly, then the OP will be liable to pay amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to complainant in lieu of want of doing this task and to enable the complainant to get task done at her own end. This amount of Rs.10 lakhs is considered/estimated on the basis of tax invoice of the printing machine, troubles and circumstances ensued and proved on record.
Consequently, the complainants request for refund of Rs.6,38,000/- on infrastructure, claim of rent of premises of Rs.9,59,698/- or further rent and loss of income of Rs.15,00,000/- or refund of Rs. 8,90,464/- paid to bank as interest on the loan or further interest at the rate of 18%pa thereon is declined.
14.3. The complainant also requested for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in lieu of harassment and mental agony. Since complainant has proved the complaint to the extent concluded in sub-paragraph 12.2. r/w paragraph 14.1 and 14.2 above , it deserves the complainant for compensation, accordingly the complainant is held for compensation. By considering those grievances proved and age of this case, the compensation is determined for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of complaint and against OP.
The complainant has also requested for costs (without quantifying it), since complainant was constrained to file the complaint, therefore, cost of Rs.30,000/-is determined in favour of complainant and against the OP.
The aforementioned amount will be payable within 41 days from today.
15. The complainant is disposed off in aforementioned terms and directions.
16. Announced on this 18th day of July, 2024 [आषाढ़ 27, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[ijs 91]
