Suggestion By Commission To File A Fresh Complaint If Dissatisfied From Repairs Unnecessarily Prolongs Litigation: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant's grievance involved a defect in a machine purchased from the Padam Graphics/manufacturer for Rs. 15,60,066. The bag-making machine, had been bought using a term loan from Punjab National Bank to earn a livelihood through self-employment.The machine had defects and consequently the complainant approached the State Commission with a complaint, but it was dismissed as premature because the complainant had not issued a legal notice to the manufacturer before filing the complaint. The State Commission's order also granted the manufacturer one month to repair the machine upon receipt of the order or after receiving a legal notice from the complainant within 45 days. If the complainant remained dissatisfied, he was given the liberty to file a fresh complaint. The complainant argued that this direction was untenable, as it did not align with the relief sought and was inconsistent with the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provisions. The order failed to address the defect in the machine or provide the requested compensation, rendering it unjust and untenable and thus deserving of being set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed an appeal to the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The manufacturer argued that the complainant had contradicted himself by claiming that the manufacturer did not respond to his concerns sent via mail. It was also stated that an engineer had been sent to inspect and suggest repairs for the machine. The manufacturer further contended that the direction in paragraph 18 of the impugned order addressed the complainant's concerns, implying there was no need to entertain this appeal.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that the State Commission's direction to repair the machine, which the complainant alleged was second-hand and defective, implied acknowledgment of the defect. However, this direction was issued without considering the complainant's evidence and contentions. The suggestion that the complainant could file a fresh complaint if dissatisfied with the repairs only served to prolong litigation unnecessarily. The Commission further highlighted that the State Commission should have considered awarding the requested relief based on the evidence regarding the defective machine. Furthermore, the decision to repair the machine was deemed unwarranted without appreciating the facts on record. The commission noted that the complaint was resolved to benefit the manufacturer, allowing them to repair the machine without adequate justification and without addressing the complainant's plea. Consequently, the case required a remand for fresh consideration based on the submissions and evidence provided. The Commission allowed the appeal and sent the matter back to the State Commission for a new decision, requesting a resolution within three month.

Case Title: Ajay Paul Singh Tanwar Vs. Padam Graphics

Case Number: F. A. No. 738/2022