ORDER S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—The complainant is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the complaint relating to alleged manufacturing defect in inkjet printer. 2. Facts in brief are that inkjet printer and rewinding machine purchased for a price of Rs. 9,62,000 were to be installed by 23.8.1994. There was delay in installation and trial run of the machine took place in 1995 and it was completed only on 15.3.1995. When the system was started to operate in full swing, a series of breakdown occurred. The machine was not performing well from the very inception. The major trouble was the frequent blockage of the nozzle plate despite changing the solvent and despite using solvent M-Pyrol for cleaning the nozzle in addition to the earlier recommended solvent 3400. Nozel was required to be changed but on 11.2.1995, there was a change over from Government Electric supply to Diesel Generator. Consequently, the motor drive circuit of winding and rewinding machine got burnt due to some high voltage. By letter dated 7.9.1995, Mr. Biju George, Marketing Engineer, Print, Bangalore sent reply detailing the actual problems and their remedies, which is as under: “The nozzle plate blocking problem is not a problem, but a result of usage of machine. They are bound to be blocked as they are used and some ink dries in the nozzle always. The only way to keep the nozzle plate clean is constant flushing and by keeping the ink line free of ink when the machine is not in operation.” “If the warranty is for manufacturing defect, the blocking of nozzle plate is not manufacturing defect, but a normal wear and tear due to usage. Hence there will be no free replacement for nozzle plate.” “You may procure a spare nozzle plate and flushing plate.” The warrantee provides as follows: “Subject to the terms of payment agreed upon being complied with and machine being operated properly, all machines carry a warranty against defective materials or workmanship for a period of 6 months from the date of invoice, whichever is earlier notwithstanding usage. Should the machine be put to beneficial use earlier for whatever reason, warranty period shall commence from the date of such use.” 3. The respondent opposite party claimed that the complainant was not a consumer. The defects occurred during warrantee period. 4. Should the machine be put to beneficial use earlier for whatever reason, warranty period shall commence from the date of such use.” 3. The respondent opposite party claimed that the complainant was not a consumer. The defects occurred during warrantee period. 4. It would be worthwhile to note here the warrantee provided as under: “This is to certify that the MARK IV Dual Head Inkjet Printer bearing Sl. No. 49860 and the Rewinding Machine is under warranty for a period of one year from 23.2.1995 to 22.2.1996, subject to our terms and conditions of warranty given below: “Subject to the terms of payment agreed upon being complied with and the machines being operated properly, the machines carry a warranty against defecting materials or workmanship for a period of one year from 23.2.1995. We agree to repair replace at our option and discretion such part(s) which in our opinion has/ have proven to be defective and which do not arise from negligence, misuse or faulty operation of the machine.” 5. In view of evidence on record particularly the affidavit of the complainant, spare nozel that was provided by the opposite party respondent also got blocked in 12 days operation and opposite party again took both the blocked nozzle plates to Bombay Office for cleaning and the Bombay Office could not solve the problem. It took two weeks time to clean it at Bangalore and on receipt it was found not operative and all the attempts of the opposite party to clean the nozzle plate were all in vain. 6. Letter was sent alleging inherent design problem with the machine on 18.10.1995 i.e. within the warrantee period. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. We have seen report of an expert, Shri Mathew V. John, Superintendent of Government Presses, which reads as under: “On running the machine it is found that the available print head is not at all working due to the blockage of nozzle. The nozzle is having a series of holes for passing the ink. Even though solvents were used the nozzle blocks were not cleared. Hence I have the opinion that the print head is having manufacturing defect.” 9. From the above, it is apparent that there was blockage of Nozel of the printer and despite use of solvent Nozel blocks were not cleared. Even though solvents were used the nozzle blocks were not cleared. Hence I have the opinion that the print head is having manufacturing defect.” 9. From the above, it is apparent that there was blockage of Nozel of the printer and despite use of solvent Nozel blocks were not cleared. Consequently, he was of the opinion that printer was having manufacturing defect. 10. Since this is evident that printer was creating problem and it is also apparent that despite use of different suggested solvent, defects in Nozel could not be rectified. Change of the solvent did not help. Consequently, it is evident that there was some manufacturing defect in the printer head of the machine. If there was defect in printer head of the printing machine, the entire machine was not required to be changed. However, to the. extent of non-replacement of printer head and Nozel, there would certainly be deficiency in rendering service. 11. During warrantee period, there was an agreement to keep the printing machine in order and make it functional by removing the defects, which were likely to occur now and then. The warrantee would be rendered meaningless if such services are not provided. Services even for commercial purpose were not excluded before 15.3.2003. Since the right conferred by the consumer protection Act was substantive, the amendment w.e.f. 15.3.2003 in clause 2(1)(d) would not affect the substantive right for the amendment did not relate to the procedure. Consequently the complainant was consumer. 12. In the light of above, the complainant appellant is entitled to be compensated for the defective part i.e. print head. 13. If we take into consideration the value, none of the parties produced virtually any evidence, about the value or cost of the print head excepting that the complainant submitted the value of the nozel print head Rs. 60,000 while according to the respondent, it was of Rs. 30,000 to 35,000. 14. Seeing that the matter is pretty old and parties had not led any evidence in regard to the value of the print head and nozzle and in the circumstances of this case we felt that in order to decently dispose of this old matter, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 45,000 with interest @ 6% thereon from the date of the complaint and parties should be left to bear their own cost. 45,000 with interest @ 6% thereon from the date of the complaint and parties should be left to bear their own cost. In the aforesaid circumstances, we put suggestion to learned counsel for the parties and seeing the defect and lack of evidence none of the parties objected to the above said solution. 15. The appeal stand disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed accordingly. *******