BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.974 OF 2012 AGAINST P.P.NO.75 OF 2010 IN C.C.NO. 157 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT
Between:
M/s Godrej & Boyce MFG.Co.Ltd.,
rep. by it’s Branch Commercial Manager,
Mr.Somesh Peri S/o Sri Venkata Ramana Peri
aged about 45 years, R/o 201 & 202, Lala-1
Land Mark, MG Road, Secunderabad.
Appellant/respondent/opposite party
A N D
1. Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development
Authority (VGTM-UDA), rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Vijayawada
Respondent/DHR/complainant
2. M/s Image Automations,
rep. by its authorized signatory
40-6-27, Hotel Kandhari Lane
Venkateswara Puram, Labbipet,
Vijayawada-10
(R2 not necessary party)
Respondent/respondent no.2/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant M/s J.Venudhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent M/s K.Mani Deepika (R1)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)
***
1. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondent directing the appellant to rectify the defects pointed out by the respondent within 15 days from the date of the order and in case the appellant failed to comply the order within the stipulated period of 15 days, the appellant was to replace the machine with new machine and pay costs of `10,000/-.
2. The respondent filed application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act stating that the appellant had not complied with the order of the District Forum.
3. The appellant filed its written version contending that it attended to the repairs within 15 days and requested the respondent to grant some time as some parts were to be imported and after importing them it attempted to replace the parts of the copier machine for which the personnel of the respondent did not permit the appellant company.
4. The appellant has submitted that the respondent demanded for replacement of the entire machine. The appellant by filing memo on 4.05.2010 in the P.P. sought for permission of the District Forum to permit it to comply with its direction. On 11.03.2010 the technician of the petition –company visited the office of the respondent and he issued service report stating that the machine was in perfect condition except replacing of RADF machine which was acknowledged by Subba Rao of the respondent office.
5. The appellant submitted that on 8.12.2010 the District Forum directed the respondent to allow the appellant company to rectify the problems of the machine and the appellant replaced the spare parts on 24.12.2010 and brought the machine in perfect working condition. The administrative officer of the respondent-office acknowledged the receipt of service report. The appellant-company deputed its technician to observe the working of the machine and on 8.1.2011 he inspected the machine on 10.01.2011 and found it in perfect working condition. The representative of the respondent had refused to acknowledge the same and the appellant had sent a letter along with satisfactory report.
6. The representative of the appellant company was examined under the provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. and thereafter assistant engineer of the respondent was examined as PW1 and ExP1 to P3 were marked and on behalf of the appellant company its manager(service ) and technical service provider were examined and photocopiers service reports were marked as Ex D1.
7. The District Forum allowed the PP and sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and further pay fine of `5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 07 days.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent has filed the appeal contending that the appellant has complied with the order of the District Forum by attending to the repairs of the machine and deposited an amount of `1,000/- before the District Forum. It is contended that the District Forum extended time for replacement of RADF which was to be imported from foreign country and even without RADF, the machine was put to working condition.
9. It is contended that the District Forum ignoring its granting extension of time for compliance of the order, erred in observing that when the defect could not be rectified within 15 days’ time granted by it, the appellant had to replace the machine with new machine. The District Forum erred in holding that extension of time for compliance of the order amounts to reviewing of its order.
10. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
11. The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the order dated 10.02.2010 and the operative portion of the order reads as order:
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties no.1 and 2 (jointly and severally) are directed to rectify the defects pointed by the complainant in the machine within 15 days from the date of this order. If they fails to rectify the same the 1st opposite party is hereby directed to replace the machine with a new defective free machine and do pay Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards costs.”
12. Thus, the District Forum granted two reliefs, one for repair of the machine and the other for replacement of the machine along with liability of payment of costs of `10,000/-. The operation of second relief is to be tested on the anvil of the period of 15 days to implement the first relief.
13. The appellant contends that it had complied with the substantial portion of the direction and sought for time for replacement of spare part, RADF which was not available in India and the District Forum has recorded finding that the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- and sought for time and it directed the respondent to permit the appellant to rectify the defect in the machine. The District Forum passed the order dated 8.12.2010 extending time for compliance of its order and the order reads as follows:
J.Dr present and deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- in favour of D.Hr and urged the Forum that the J.Dr may be permitted to rectify the defect since the D.Hr refused to entertain he mechanic to rectify the defect in the machine. As per the order of this Forum the J.Dr has to rectify the defect at first, failing which, they have to install the new machine so, the J.Dr is permitted to rectify the defect as per the orders of this Forum dated 10.02.2010. Further, the D.Hr is hereby directed to allow the mechanic to examine the machine and to rectify the defect and then comply, order accordingly”.
14. In compliance of the aforementioned order, the appellant had got the problems posed by the machine rectified by its technician on 24.12.2010 and the machine was brought to perfect working condition evidenced by the service report which was acknowledged by the administrative officer of the appellant-office. It is not denied that the machine ever since was kept under observation and the appellant had deputed its technician therefor.
15. The technician of the appellant-company who was deputed to observe the functioning of the photocopier inspected the machine on 8.01.2011 and issued service report dated 10.01.2011 to the effect the machine was functioning satisfactorily. As the official of the respondent had refused to receive the copy of service report, the appellant had sent it along with its letter to the respondent. The District Forum has satisfied with the compliance of its order making the following observation:
“From the discussion made it is clear that the complainant having not questioned the oral order of this Forum virtually accepted for rectification of defect in the machine. Then the rectification done by the opposite party and keeping the machine in working condition by 24.12.2010 and by 10.01.2011 as per reports under Ex.D1 may be taken to be accepted compliance but only after the oral order passed by this Forum. Even then it is clear that till 24.12.2010 the respondent/1st opposite party did not rectify the machine. He said to have made an attempt to replace the defective part of the machine i.e., RADF only on 30.11.2010. The respondent tries to convince this Forum that after repairs on 11.3.2010 and till 24.12.2010 when RADF was replaced, the copier was working well and several copies were taken on it. The learned counsel for the respondent invites an attention to the count note in the serviced report dated 1.3.2010 and 24.12.2010. They show that 186146 copies were taken till 11.3.2010 and 198560 copies were taken by 24.12.2010 even without RAF. The respondent wants us to believe that the copies had given very good output. In fact it is otherwise. The subject copies has the capacity of printing/copying 50 sheets per minute. The time between 11.3.2010 to 24.12.2010 si 287 days. If actual working days are taken as only 200, the copies given by the subject copier was at the rate of around 60 copies per day. Even if slow rate of 30 sheets per minute is taken the working was for not more than 2 minutes per working day with 7 ½ working hours (450 minutes). Are we to accept that this is good performance? Even with regard to payment of costs, no attempt was made to pay costs awarded by this Forum to the complainant till 30.11.2010. A DD for Rs.1,000/- was filed in this PP on 8.12.2010, with a memo, instead of giving it to the complainant. At the cost of repletion we say that the oral order of the Forum made on 8.12.2010 would not affect the intensity of the order passed by this Forum in the CC. We have to see violation of that order and not compliance of any interim arrangement subsequently suggested by this Forum pending PP. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent/1st opposite party has failed to comply with the order of this Forum.”
16. The only fault the District Forum has found with the appellant is that the appellant has complied with its order however, not within the time frame prescribed by it. The time granted for rectifying the defects in the machine was 15 days from the date of passing the order and the appellant had attended to the repairs and thereafter sought for extension of time for replacement of RADF which was also granted by the District Forum.
17. The District Forum finding the appellant complying with its order proceeded to punish the appellant on the premise that it had not complied with its order within time granted therefor which in our view is not permissible in law as the District Forum has extended time for replacement of RADF of the photocopier and there was no objection or appeal preferred by the respondent against the order extending time for compliance of the order. In the circumstances, we find the appeal deserve to be allowed.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the PP is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.02.12.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
