Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that the Complainant firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Maninder Pal Singh Chawla who is also known as Maninder Singh is one of the registered partner of the firm, so the present complaint is filed through registered partner of the firm. The Complainant alleges that representative of the Opposite Party  came to the Complainant at Bagha Purana for the sale of 5 Chute Sortex machine in the last year and allured to purchase the same and on his assurance the Complainant purchased the machines. Accordingly, the Opposite Party  delivered the said machine and installed at Bagha Purana, but on its installation, the machine was not working properly and there is a major defect in the machine. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party  and they sent their representative for the removal of the defects in the machine, but could not remove the defects and asked that there is a major  defect in the machine and assured the Complainant that this machine will be shifted to Ludhiana. After that, the Opposite Party brought two customers and shown the machine to them and assured the Complainant that Rs.6 lakhs will be refunded alongwith interest. But inspite of assurance, neither the Opposite Party  upright the machine upto this date nor refunded the amount as promised and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has suffered huge loss in his business. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Party may be directed to  lift the defective machine and to make the payment of Rs.16 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from  the date of payment till its realization.

Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the redressal of her grievances. 

2.       Opposite Party appeared through Ms.Rupsa Mukherjeet, Advocate and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Opposite Party  has provided the Complainant with quotation of 5 sortex machine on 27.09.2017 and having satisfied with the terms of the quotation bought 5 shute sortex machine from the Opposite Party  on 11.11.2017 for Rs.15 lakhs. The Complainant after being provided with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of the product and after being satisfied and agreeing to the conditions provided had purchased the product on payment of rs.6 lakhs. Thereafter, after delivery of the product, the Opposite Party  was discharged from all sort of obligations and till April 12, 2018 there was no sort of communication from the Complainant end, until Opposite Party  received email from the Complainant stating that they being aggrieved with the machine's functioning wishes  to return back the machines bought and have asked for a refund against the machine, being returned. The Complainant were given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, wherein it was clearly agreed upon that once the product is sold, can not be returned back and as such there will be no refunded. Since the product value was rs.15 lakhs and the Complainant had paid Rs.6 lakhs and till date an amount of Rs.9 lakhs is still pending towards the Complainant and hence, the complaint brought against the Opposite Party  stands to be invalid and fabricated story.           

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C24   and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       On the other hand, after filing the written version, none has come present on behalf of the Opposite Party, and therefore, written intimation was also sent to the Opposite Party  to come presnt and pursue the matter, but despite intimation se to the Opposite Party vide order dated 06.10.2021, none  has come present on behalf of the Opposite Party  and as such, the Opposite Party  was proceeded against exparte vide order dated       

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the Complainant and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that  Complainant firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Maninder Pal Singh Chawla who is also known as Maninder Singh is one of the registered partner of the firm, so the present complaint is filed through registered partner of the firm. The Complainant alleges that representative of the Opposite Party  came to the Complainant at Bagha Purana for the sale of 5 Chute Sortex machine in the last year and allured to purchase the same and on his assurance the Complainant purchased the machines. Accordingly, the Opposite Party  delivered the said machine and installed at Bagha Purana, but on its installation, the machine was not working properly and there is a major defect in the machine. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party  and they sent their representative for the removal of the defects in the machine, but could not remove the defects and asked that there is a major  defect in the machine and assured the Complainant that this machine will be shifted to Ludhiana. After that, the Opposite Party brought two customers and shown the machine to them and assured the Complainant that Rs.6 lakhs will be refunded alongwith interest. But inspite of assurance, neither the Opposite Party  upright the machine upto this date nor refunded the amount as promised and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, the main defence of the Opposite Party  as narrated in the written version is that the Opposite Party  has provided the Complainant with quotation of 5 sortex machine on 27.09.2017 and having satisfied with the terms of the quotation bought 5 shute sortex machine from the Opposite Party  on 11.11.2017 for Rs.15 lakhs. The Complainant after being provided with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of the product and after being satisfied and agreeing to the conditions provided had purchased the product on payment of Rs.6 lakhs. Thereafter, after delivery of the product, the Opposite Party  was discharged from all sort of obligations and till April 12, 2018 there was no sort of communication from the Complainant end, until Opposite Party  received email from the Complainant stating that they being aggrieved with the machine's functioning wishes  to return back the machines bought and have asked for a refund against the machine, being returned. The Complainant were given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, wherein it was clearly agreed upon that once the product is sold, can not be returned back and as such there will be no refunded. Since the product value was Rs.15 lakhs and the Complainant had paid Rs.6 lakhs and till date an amount of Rs.9 lakhs is still pending towards the Complainant.

8.       In this context, there area two major questions involved in this complaint. First what was the actual price of the machine Sortex admittedly purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The answer to this question is Rs.15 lakhs. In this regard, the Complainant has himself produced on record the bill of the machine dated 11.11.2017 worth Rs.15 lakhs, and on the other hand, the Complainant has alleged that they have purchased the machine from the Opposite Party  worth Rs.6 lakhs, but the defence of the Opposite Party  is that since the machine in question was purchased by the Complainant wroth Rs.15 lakhs and only Rs.6 lakhs has been paid (as admitted by the Complainant) and remaining amount of Rs.9 lakhs is still due towards the Complainant.

9.       The second plea raised by the Opposite Party  is that after admitting the terms and condition as agreed  between the parties, the Complainant has purchased the machine in question and hence at this stage, the Complainant can not wriggle out from its agreement. Moreover,  the complainant was given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, wherein it was clearly agreed upon that once the product is sold, can not be returned back and as such there will be no refunded and this version has nowhere denied by the Complainant by filing any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant never accepted such  terms and conditions of the Opposite Party  while purchase the machine in question.  In this regard, we find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed 10 it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:-

“22.   Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..”

“24.   Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”

The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Same view has also been expressed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in  First Appeal No.485 of 2019 in case  Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Versus Atma Singh, decided recently on 11.11.2021.

10.     Furthermore, the Complainant in his complainant has specifically mentioned that the complainant firm is a partnership firm and the machine in question was installed in its units and due to the defect in the machine in question, the Complainant  suffered huge loss in its business, but in the facts of the present case, the complainant firm does not plead if it was running the business  for earning the livelihood by self-employment. The machine in question was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party to generate profits which clearly make it a commercial purpose.The latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court defining the limits of the words ‘commercial purpose’ is reported as “Economic Transport Organization v. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & anr. I (2010) CPJ 4 (SC)”

11.     Considered from all  angles, the complainant firm does not come  within the meaning of consumer  under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended upto date). In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in  the complaint and the same are hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.02.2022.