2019 (4) TMI 229 - SC - Indian Laws

Consumer protection - seeking refund or deficiency in service - condition of purchase of Installation of 1KVA Online UPS while purchasing the equipment - Held that - The pre-installation requisite clearly stipulates that the appellant has to provide (i) Efficiently air-conditioned room (ii) 1KVA Online UPS for running of the equipment (iii) Broadband connection for i-track (Remote Diagnostics Tool). The equipment will be provided with i-track remote facility at the time of installation. In the brochure supplied to the appellant, there is no commitment of supply of instrument with on-board laundry facility. Thus, the appellant could not insist on on-board laundry facility which was never committed to be delivered to the appellant along with the instrument nor there could be any installation of the equipment without installation of 1KVA Online UPS as part of pre-installation requirements. The email from the manufacturer will not override the pre-conditions of installation which are in view of electricity supply conditions in the country. All the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) have found that there is no deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice. There is no error in the orders passed by the Forums constituted under the Act which warrant interference in the present appeals - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to NCDRC judgment and order, Pre-installation requisite conditions, Supply of equipment, Complaint dismissal by District Forum and State Commission, Allegations of restrictive trade practice, Appeal to NCDRC, Performance dependency on electricity supply, Manufacturer's communication on UPS suitability, Dismissal of appeals by Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and a subsequent review petition. The appellant had ordered a TurboChem 100 Unit and paid 50% of the cost but faced issues with the pre-installation requirements. The appellant claimed the respondent insisted on an Online UPS despite manufacturer confirmation on UPS suitability and absence of on-board laundry facility, seeking payment and damages.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence on on-board laundry inclusion. The State Commission upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the absence of a commitment for on-board laundry and the necessity of a 1KVA Online UPS. The NCDRC also rejected the appeal, citing no commitment on laundry facility and no proof of malfunction or defect in the instrument.

The appellant argued in the Supreme Court that the manufacturer's email confirmed UPS suitability with specific conditions. However, the Court upheld the lower forums' decisions, emphasizing the pre-installation requirements, lack of commitment on laundry facility, and the necessity of an Online UPS for uninterrupted power supply. The Court concluded no deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice, dismissing the appeals.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the lower forums' decisions. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to pre-installation requirements, lack of commitment on additional features, and the necessity of an Online UPS for continuous electricity supply. The manufacturer's communication did not override the specified conditions, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claims of deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice.