Case Title: Ajay Paul Singh Tanwar Vs. Padam Graphics
Case Number: F. A. No. 738/2022
In a recent turn of events, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) criticised the State Commission’s approach to a complaint against Padam Graphics, the manufacturer of a defective machine. The NCDRC, under the leadership of Justice A. P. Sahi, stated that the State Commission’s advice to the complainant to file a new complaint if unhappy with the repairs was unnecessary and contributed to lengthening the legal process.
The issue at hand revolved around a defective bag-making machine that the complainant had purchased from Padam Graphics for Rs. 15,60,066. The machine, financed by a term loan from Punjab National Bank, was intended to help the complainant earn a livelihood. However, the machine’s defects led to a complaint with the State Commission. The complaint was initially dismissed due to the lack of a legal warning to the manufacturer before the complaint was lodged.
The State Commission granted Padam Graphics a month to rectify the machine following the order or after receiving a legal notice from the complainant within 45 days. However, the complainant found this direction unsatisfactory. He claimed it did not align with the relief he sought and was inconsistent with the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant felt that the order failed to address the machine’s defect or the compensation he requested, leading him to appeal to the National Commission.
On their part, Padam Graphics argued that the complainant’s claims were inconsistent. They stated that an engineer had been dispatched to inspect the machine and recommend repairs. They contended that the complaint was adequately addressed in the impugned order’s paragraph 18, negating the need for further appeal.
The National Commission, however, found that the State Commission’s decision to repair the defective machine, which the complainant claimed was second-hand, indirectly confirmed the machine’s defect. It noted that the State Commission had not taken into account the complainant’s evidence and arguments. The Commission also stressed that the State Commission should have contemplated providing the relief requested by the complainant based on the evidence of the machine’s defect.
Moreover, the Commission deemed the decision to repair the machine without thoroughly understanding the presented facts as unwarranted. It noted that the verdict seemed to favour the manufacturer, permitting them to repair the machine without sufficient grounds, and sidelining the complainant’s request. Therefore, the Commission decided to send the case back to the State Commission for re-evaluation based on the evidence and arguments provided. It asked the State Commission to resolve the matter within three months.
This case emphasises the importance of thoroughly reviewing the facts and evidence before making a decision and taking into account the complainant’s needs and requests. It also underscores the importance of avoiding unnecessary litigation and promoting a more effective resolution of consumer disputes.
