Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case, in a nutshell, is that, the Complainant purchased one machine, viz., Mistral PC Gold Aloy Analyser worth Rs. 11,35,000/- from the OP No. 1 on 22-04-2014.  During operation of the said machine, it started giving problem and so the machine was sent to the OP No. 2.  However, the OP No. 2 failed to fix the problem properly.  Hence, this complaint. 

In their defence, the OPs submitted that on 26-05-2014, the unit was installed at the place of business of the Complainant.  The machine was under warranty for 12 months.  During this period, the Complainant made no complaint.  After expiry of the warranty period, in the month of June, 2016, the Complainant for the first time lodged complaint regarding functioning of the unit and accordingly, Service Engineer was deputed to the site for inspection on 21-06-2016, when it was found that unit had been shifted to some other place than where it was originally installed.  It was also noticed that the machine had already been attended by some unauthorized persons.  Since the xray machine could not be repaired overthere, the Engineer concerned brought the defective part to their place and repaired the same.  Subsequently, the Engineer of the OPs revisited the site.  However, as he encountered some problems while starting the machine, which could not be repaired by him, the Complainant was requested to send the unit to the Kolkata service centre of the OPs.  Accordingly, the Complainant delivered the unit to the Kolkata service centre of the OPs on 29-06-2016.  After replacing few parts, the Complainant was advised by the service centre to replace some other parts also.  However, after realizing that the Complainant would have to bear the incidental expenses, he stopped responding.  As the Complainant did not give his consent to bear the incidental expenses, the OPs could not proceed further. 

We are to decide in this case, whether the Complainant deserves any relief, or not.

Heard both sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record thoroughly.

Undisputedly, problem started with the machine post expiry of warranty period.  In view of this, the OPs had no legal liability to repair the defective parts free of cost.

It is though alleged by the Complainant that the machine was suffering from inherent defects, no tangible proof is adduced by him to establish such contention beyond all reasonable doubt.  The Complainant made no such application before this Commission to get the machine inspected through an independent expert in order to find out the veracity of his allegation. 

Thus, while the Complainant miserably failed to prove his case by advancing tangible proof, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant deserves no relief.  The complaint case is dismissed as such.  Parties to bear their respective costs.