IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 154/S/2014. DATED : 22.11.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : SRI KAILASH KHAITAN,
S/O Sri Om Prakash Khaitan,
Proprietor of M/s. Jambo Printers,
having his office at “Sree Bhawan Market”,
Opposite Bidhan Jewellers, Hill Cart Road,
Siliguri – 734 001, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : MEHTA CAD CAM SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
A private limited company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 4 & 5,
“Sumel”, 2nd Floor, Opposite GNFC Info Tower,
Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway,
Ahmedabad – 380 059, in the state of Gujrat.
2. : CAD CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A private limited company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its office at #5,
Sir P S Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004
and also having its office at 2 No. Maharaja Nanda
Kumar Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 700 029.
3. : ROTH + WEBER GmbH,
having its International Sales office at Betzdorfer
StrabBe, 57520 Niederdreisbach, Germany.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Prabhat Pal Chowdhury, Advocate.
FOR THE OP No. 2 : Sri N.N. Dutta, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case in brief is that he is engaged in providing reprographic services to various customers, and he earns his livelihood through the said business. OP No.1 is the authorized supplier of equipments manufactured by OP No.3, which is a manufacturer of international repute. The complainant was induced by OP No.1 to purchase an equipment
Contd……..P/2
-:2:-
manufactured by OP No.3, and the complainant was given the assurance that he would be provided service maintenance for ten years. As pursuant to the assurance, the complainant purchased the equipment manufactured by the OP No.3 for a large sum. The equipment was supplied to the complainant by the OP No.1, and it was installed at the office of the complainant. However, the machine did not work satisfactorily due to manufacturing defect, and it remained idle for a long time. Since 10.07.2013, the OP No.2 took charge for providing maintenance, and executed an agreement to that effect with the complainant, and the complainant paid the service charges. However, even OP No.2 neglected to provide proper maintenance/service support, and the machine remains dysfunctional since March, 2014. The complainant informed OP No.3 over e-mail about his problem, and he was assured that his complaint would be looked into. However, the complainant still did not obtain relief. The complainant thus filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to replace the machinery or alternatively to pay him the cost of the machine being Rs.8,32,000/-, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.
The OP No.1 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. It is stated by the OP No.1 that complainant has purchased the machine in question from this OP which was manufactured by OP No.3 and said machine was delivered on 30.04.2012. Since installation there was satisfactory report. The complainant has given good services as per monthly invoices for service charge which was prayed by the complainant satisfactorily. It is also case of the OP No.1 that OP No.2 had taken the charge for maintenance of the machine. OP No.1 has given the charge of maintenance to the OP No.2 from 4th April, 2013 and therefore OP No.1 is not responsible for any deficiency in service.
The OP No.2 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. OP No.2 has submitted that the OP No.2 received call from this customer at the end of August, 2014. Though the machine was out of contract and the OP No.2 attended call on 02.09.2014 and the OP has sound problem on OPC drum due to low quality media used by Customers. Yield of the OPC was only 7000 LM where as OEM recommended life time of OPC in 501000 LMI and the OP No.2 denied to replace the new OPC at free of cost as there was no live contract for this Machine. So, the OP No.2 case stands that the OP No.2 denied to replace the new OPC at free of cost as there was live contract for this machine.
To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents :-
Contd……..P/3
-:3:-
1. Xerox copy of the Quotation being No.MCCS/PP/QUT-E15/2011-12 dated 27.03.2012.
2. Xerox copy of Invoice being No.22 dated 30.04.2012.
3. Xerox copy of Service Agreement for ROWE Machine dated 07th May, 2012.
4. Xerox copy of CPRM Agreement dated 10.07.2013.
5. Xerox copy of the email dated 21st August, 2014.
6. Xerox copy of the email dated 22nd August, 2014.
Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.
Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
From the complaint, and from the written version it appears that disputes concerned with defect in the machine purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, who installed the machine within the jurisdiction of complainant. In the instant case there is no petition/application or opinion of expert to make conclusion regarding point of dispute between the parties. Without appropriate expert’s opinion who have experience in this subject, no conclusion can be drawn. Accordingly, the complaint and the same is dismissed for want of adequate cogent evidence.
Therefore the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.154/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OP Nos.1 & 2 and dismissed exparte against the OP No.3, but without any cost.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
