BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER For the Appellant Ms Samridhi, Proxy Counsel with Authority letter For Mr Malak Bhatt, Advocate For the Respondent Mr Naving Kumar Chaudhary and Mr Pravind Kumar, Advocates ORDER PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) in challenge to order dated 29.11.2018 in Consumer Complaint No. 681 of 2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, “the State Commission”) allowing the complaint filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service in a machine supplied by the appellant herein.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had placed an order for one Mitsubishi Cosmos CNC Vertical Machining Center Model: CVM 800 on 21.07.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs 26,25,500/-. The machine was delivered on 26.07.2017 and installed on 01.08.2017. Complaints were raised by the respondent regarding the functioning of the machine between 19.08.2017 and 03.02.2018 relating to issues pertaining to vibration of axis, finishing and lining, lubrication, Y-axis lubrication, preventive maintenance, lubricant and other issues which were addressed by visits by Mitsubishi technicians from time to time although certain issues remained outstanding. On 19.04.2018 a legal notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant who deputed his representatives to address the concerns. On 26.07.2018 the warranty for the machine expired and an extension of the warranty was issued with regard to the Axis LM guideway, a part of the machine, till 18.02.2019. Respondent filed complaint no. 681 of 2018 before the State Commission claiming refund with interest and compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs 50,000/-. On 10.10.2018 during the pendency of this case, parties came to a settlement as per which appellant undertook to replace all the 3 axes LM Guideways of the machine, provide extended warranty of 2 years for the ball screw of the machine and the respondent undertook to withdraw the case before the State Commission on replacement of the LM Guideways. A warranty extension letter was issued by the appellant on 20.10.2018 as per which warranty was extended from 02.08.2018 to 01.08.2020. According to the appellant the replacement of the X, Y and Z axes was done on 23.11.2018 and thereby the settlement terms were complied with. However, the appellant did not appear or withdraw the case before the State Commission. Consequently on 29.11.2018 the impugned order came to be pronounced as per which the refund of the cost of Rs 26,25,500/- with interest at 9% per annum on return of the machine along with Rs 30,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses was ordered. This order is impugned before us.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that the impugned order did not consider the complete details of the case and that the State Commission had failed to consider that all disputes between the parties stood amicably resolved by way of the Settlement Terms dated 10.10.2018 and that as per the settlement terms the appellant had taken steps to comply with the liabilities accepted by it. It was contended that the Settlement Terms had not been brought to the attention of the State Commission and that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate facts. Reliance was placed on Ramesh Chand Ardhavatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508. It was also contended that the State Commission erred in not appreciating that the respondent had not displayed any interest in the prosecution of the case since it remained absent for three consecutive hearings and that it ought not to have decided the case on merits. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer, (2018) SCC Online P&H 5754. It was further contended that the State Commission had pronounced its orders in the absence of both parties and without providing the appellant an opportunity of being heard. It was averred that the order was solely based on the documents filed by the complainant/respondent and was based on the assumption that there were continuing problems with the machine since the extension of warranty period was by the appellant was an admission of irreparable defects in the machine. Reliance was placed on Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs Makhan Lal (2018) 8 SCC 745 and Kranti Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs Masood Ahmad, (2010) 9 SCC 496. It is the contention of the appellant that there were no inherent manufacturing defects, and the machine was in working condition with all teething issues resolved by the appellant. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order set aside, 5. Per contra, the respondent contended that the Settlement letter was an admission by the appellant that the machine did not work properly and that as per the minutes of the Settlement dated 10.10.2018, the appellant had undertaken to provide additional two years of warranty and replacement of certain parts free of cost as an admission of the same. Even after the fresh warranty and replacement of parts, the machine failed to operate effectively and was lying defective as on date. According to the respondent, the machine was not in operation since December 2018 and despite intimation to the appellants, no steps were taken to redress the grievances of the respondent. It was submitted that the appellants had been declared ex parte as they failed to appear before the State Commission on 23.08.2018 and therefore, the order of the State Commission was in order and should be upheld. 6. As per the record, Appellant has filed a service report of its engineer dated 23.11.2008 had been filed, whereby it is mentioned that X,Y, and Z LM Guideway and LM Block had been replaced indicating that all other components of the Settlement agreement have been complied with. Letter dated 20.10.2018 has also been filed in support of its assertion that the warranty had also been extended by two years as undertaken. These assertions are not disputed by the respondent. 7. From the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, it would be evident that the Appellant had complied with the settlement terms in so far as they related to the replacement of the X,Y and Z Guideway axes and the extension of the warranty by two years. It is, however, seen that the same was not followed up by any formal recording of the conclusion of the said Settlement and that the same was not brought on record before the State Commission. It is also evident that the State Commission proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the submissions made before it by the two parties without either of the parties being present on consecutive dates and therefore, the correct factual position as per either party was not noted by the Commission as on date of adjudication. The contention of the Appellant is supported by the documents it has relied upon in terms of the service report and the extension of the warranty letter. The respondent's contention that the machine has been idle since December 2018 is, however, not supported by any documentary evidence. 8. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation which seeks to protect the bona fide interests of consumers. However, it is also relevant that the proceedings under this beneficial legislation are just and equitable. A judgement which is based on contentions that have not been verified or supported by affidavits or documentary evidence can result in undue advantage to either party or the profiting from the claims made before the Consumer fora. In light of the fact that there are certain documentary evidences which are placed before us, and the fact that the State Commission pronounced its order without either of the parties appearing before it, and the recording or appreciation of any evidence with regard to the position as on the date of the adjudication of the matter, it is considered necessary to allow the appeal and to remand the matter to the State Commission to ascertain the correct factual position with regard to the facts of the case and to thereafter adjudicate it. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28th November 2024. The State Commission is directed to hear the matter after due notice to both the parties as per law, preferably within a period of four months and to pronounce a reasoned and considered order keeping in view the factual position especially with regard to the execution of the settlement agreement dated 10.10.2018. At this stage, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the rival claims of the parties. 10. All pending IAs also stand disposed with this order. |
