D.o.F:20/10/2010
D.o.O:29/10/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO. 220/10
Dated this, the 29th day of October 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.Govindan Nair, Proprietor,
M/s Vamans Studio, New Busstand, : Complainant
Kasaragod.
(Adv.C.Krishna Kumar,Kasaragod)
Mr.Aneesh Kumar, Proprietor
M/s Teleworld, Ist floor, New Busstand, : Opposite party
Kasaragod
(Adv.Shrikanta Shetty,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows:
That the complainant is a professional photographer and Video grapher and he purchased Canon copier machine from opposite party in the month of November 2009 for an amount of `70,000/-. While purchasing the same the opposite party promised him that the copier machine is having one year guarantee and the opposite party will replace the same with a new one if any complaint or mechanical defect occurs. But after two weeks of purchase the machine is having complaint and the matter was informed to the opposite party and the opposite party attended the complaint and informed the complainant that the catridge of the machine is not properly functioning and agreed to replace the same within 7 days. But the opposite party failed to replace the catridge. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. On receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite party appeared through counsel and filed his version. According to opposite party he sold a reconditioned canon machine to the complainant for an amount of `35000/-. He never sold a new copier machine for `70,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party submits that the complainant is a close friend of opposite party and he used to visit the shop of the opposite party. One day the complainant happened to see a reconditioned cannon copier machine in the shop and expressed his willingness to purchase the same and he complainant to took the machine in his studio and kept there about 10 days and after satisfying its working he paid `35,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party did not assure any warranty or guarantee to the machine as the machine is a reconditioned one. The said machine was supplied in the month of February 2008 and on friendship the opposite party used to give punctual services to the complainant. Now there is a toner complaint and the complainant requested the opposite party to supply another toner free of cost which the opposite party refused. The cost of the toner is `10,500/- and the complainant is not ready to pay the cost of the toner and the opposite party is unable to replace the toner. Hence there is no deficiency on his part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In this case the evidence consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts.A1&A2 and opposite party is examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 marked. Expert report is marked as Ext.C 1.
After going through the facts on record and perusal of documents the following issues raised for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief and costs?
The specific case of the complainant is that he purchased a canon copier machine on 15/11/2009 from the opposite party for an amount of `70,000/- having one year guarantee. Now the machine has got a manufacturing defect. In order to prove his case he had taken out an expert commission and the commissioner filed his report and the same is marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner was directed to note the capacity of the sensor, the manufacturing defect of the scanner, film, catridge and paper rolling tray of the copier machine and the mechanical capacity of the copier machine. According to the commissioner the machine is not working and the reason for the same is toner unit complaint and the capacity of the copier machine is one lakh. He has not reported that the machine is having any manufacturing defect. Here the case of the opposite party is tallying with the commission report. The opposite party’s case is that the machine is a re conditioned one and the toner of the machine has got complaint and it can be cured by changing the toner. According to him the complainant has to pay the cost of the toner.
Then we will consider who has to pay the cost of the toner to repair the cannon copier machine. Whether the opposite party has to pay the cost or the complainant has to bear? If the machine is within the guarantee or warranty period the opposite party has to bear the cost of the toner. But there is no evidence before this Forum that when the machine was purchased what is the price of the machine and what is the form of warranty or guarantee of the machine . Here there is no purchase bill and there is no guarantee card. Nothing is stated about the purchase bill and guarantee card. It cannot be believed that a person will purchase a new machine having a price of `70,000/- and having a guarantee of one year will pay the amount without obtaining receipt or guarantee card. Here the complainant failed to produce the relevant documents. That means the case of the opposite party that he sold a re conditioned machine is sustainable. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any guarantee from the opposite party since it is a reconditioned machine and it is purchased as buyers own risk. Hence we are of the opinion that since there is no manufacturing defect and the machine is a re conditioned one the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as prayed for.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1-Copy of lawyer Notice
A2-reply notice
C1- commission report
B1-Ext.A2
PW1- Govindan Nair-complainant
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
