First Appeal No. 38 of 2013. Case: Bimla Paper Products Vs Somaya Impex Private Limited. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 38 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate and For Respondents: Ex parte |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. (President) and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | II (2014) CPJ 120 (HP) |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, J. (President)
-
Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed as not maintainable, with the finding that Courts at Delhi alone have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and that on merits also, the case of the appellant is not proved. Appellant filed a complaint alleging that he had purchased a Non-Woven Bag Printing Machine from the respondent, by paying a sum of Rs. 3,31,500. He alleged that the machine, ordered for, was of single phase, but the machine supplied was of three phase. This error, according to the complainant, was noticed by the engineers of the respondent itself, when they came to install the machine and they assured to replace it by a new machine of single phase. Complainant alleged that despite repeated requests and notices, machine was not replaced and ultimately on 6.3.2012, an engineer was sent by the respondent to convert the machine from three phase to single phase, for which a sum of Rs. 12,000 was charged. The machine worked only for one day and then went out of order. It was alleged that when the engineer was converting the machine from three phase to single phase, he pointed out that there was a manufacturing defect in the machine. On these allegations, the appellant sought a direction to the respondent to refund the price of the machine, to refund Rs. 12,000 paid extra for converging the machine from three phase to single phase, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,33,750 by way of compensation, as the appellant had to pay that much amount of money by way of interest on the loan raised from bank, and also to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs for loss of income, another sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs for mental harassment, pain and agony and Rs. 25,000, as litigation expenses.
-
Complaint has been dismissed by the learned District Forum at admission stage, holding that the invoice bears a printed condition restricting the jurisdiction to Delhi Courts only and that there is no evidence in support of the plea that the appellant had placed order for supply of single phase machine, nor is there any evidence that any warranty was issued by the respondent.
-
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
-
It is true that invoice, Annexure A-4, says that Courts at Delhi alone...
To continue reading
Request your trial