HYDERABAD.
FA.No.656/2011 against C.C.No.17/2010
Between
1. Amont Software & Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,
1. K.Mohan
2. G.Syam Babu S/o.Mathaiah
3. M/s.Aurosai Enterprises
nd
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
***
Though opposite party No.1 had When he complained again, he was directed to bear the flight charges of the service engineer and accordingly the amount was paid.
1) Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the printer supplied by the appellant?
2) Whether the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
3) To what relief?
It is an undisputed fact that a printer manufactured by opposite party No.1 was purchased from the authorized distributor, opposite party No.2, for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- vide Exs.A2 to A5 and A7. Hyderabad hanging, system restarted, blockage, Alignment, system problem, software setting problem, change new CPU, installed the software done some setting”. It was rectified and found working evidenced under Ex.A10.
“There was power supply, voltage not correct, and set tank level was not correct
And also ink filters changed….”
It was noted that it rectified the same and made an endorsement ‘now the printer is working properly’.
On 02-6-2009 when the complainant had complained of ‘Back colour problem and Black Voltage problem’
1.
2.
1. No print was noticed on the flex sheet loaded.
2. The Print head are moving as pet the settings, back & forth within the set limits.
3.
4.
No doubt the representatives of opposite parties 1 and 2 could not attend as the time was insufficient. Despite the request of the Advocate to extend some more time as he was not an expert, and requested time to procure expert from the company, the expert engineer (Principal) went ahead and noted the above conclusions.
The learned counsel for the Had the complainant shown to the expert that despite taking precaution and maintaining temperature and made conducive the premises for working the printer and that the problem was not due to the temperature but due to inherent defect in the printer, undoubtedly the same could be directed to be replaced or the defect could be directed to be replaced. Indiawhen any parts of a vehicle or equipment is replaceable and rectifiable, it cannot be stated to be having an inherent manufacturing defect warranting replacement of the entire equipment/vehicle of refund of the value.
Unfortunately, the District Forum directed the entire machinery to be replaced.
Secondly the complainants filed the complaint in their individual names alleging that they purchased the printer in order to eke out their livelihood, Though they allege that they have purchased the printer from out of the pensionary benefits,
Be that as it may, the complainants for the reasons best known purchased the printer under the name and style of ‘M/s.Dileep Digitals and Printer’ vide sale invoice Ex.A4, transport invoice, Ex.A5, receipt from Cargo Movers, Ex.A6, tax invoice Ex.A7 and the amounts that were paid by D.D. was on behalf of the company. When the complainants were complained that they were functioning under the name and style of M/s Dileep Digitals and Printers vide Exs.A10 and A11, the complainants did not file the complaint under the name and style of M/s.Dileep Digitals and Printers, the name under which the printer was purchased.
Birla Technologies Ltd. Versus Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. reported in CDJ 2010 SC-1177
In view of the findings of the National Commission that the goods sold by the
Exfacie, it looks as though M/s Dileep Digitals and Printers is the purchaser and the complainants filing the complaint in their individual names is bad under law.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
.
JM | |
| [HONABLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO] |
| PRESIDENT |
| |
| [HONABLE MR. S. BHUJANGA RAO] |
| MEMBER |
