ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
The complainant for earning his livelihood was interested to purchase a photocopying machine, that the complainant approached the 1st opp.party’s office at Kollam and enquired about the details of their photocopy machine. The 1st opp.party informed the complainant that the photocopying machine distributed by them is maintaining high quality and they are hiving warranty for 1 year for the machine and 3 months for its accessories, that the complainant believing the words of the opp.parties purchased photocopying machine having specification vide No.IR 2016 Digital Printer for Rs.78,548.50 evidencing the amount received the 2nd opp.party part issued a receipt vide No.SB000730 dated 27..2..2006. The machine was delivered on the same day by the 1st opp.party. The service engineer of the opp.parties installed the machine. After 5 months the photocopying machine began to show serious defects and became in operative. The fact of the defect of the machine was informed to the opp.party and their service engineer after inspection on 21.8.2006 informed that the problem of the main control board is the cause of the defect and informed the complainant that he has to bare the expense for replacing the main control board. The complainant almost spend one lakh rupees for the installation of the photocopying machine and within the warranty period of one year itself the complainant was directed to spend Forty Thousand more for replacing the defective main control board. Thus on 22.8.2006 the complainant approached the 1st opp.party’s office and informed them about the defect of the machine. The opp.party informed that they are ready to replace the main control board free of cost only on a condition that the complainant has to give 30 paise per copy to the 1st opp.party including the copy already taken and for the same the complainant will have to enter upon an agreement with the opp.party. If the complainant was ready to comply with the above said condition then they will look forward to replace the defect at the cost of the opp.party. In fact the acts of the opp.parties are per illegal since the manufacturing defect occurred within the warranty period. Hence filed this complaint.
Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st opp.party is an authorized dealer of photocopiers etc, manufactured by the Canon Compabny, M/s. Premium Corporate Partner, Marikar Motors Ltd, Musaliar Building, Chinnakkada, Kollam, the 2nd opp.party is the 1st opp.party’s Kollam Division and in this proceedings both the 1st and 2nd opp.parties represented by the Manager, Canon Division, Marikar Motors Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. It is admitted that on 27..2..2006 the complainant purchased a canon photocopier machine from the 1st opp.party Kollam Division. But the averment contained in para NO.2 of the complaint that the opp.party informed the complainant that they giving warranty for 1 year for the machine and 3 months for its accessories are not true to facts but ill motivated also and hence unsustainable, that upto 21..8..06 ie. For the first five months from the date of purchase there was no sort of complaint regarding the functioning the system on getting a complainant/call from the customer on 21..8..2006, the service engineer of the opp.parties inspected the machine on the same day and found that the photo copy machine was not working since its main control board was damaged. As the warranty protection extended by the manufacturer was for 3 months only from the date of installation, the opp.parties were not supposed to replace the damaged part free of cost. Hence, the service Engineer was constrained to inform the complainant that the consumer/complainant has to bear the expenses for replacing the main control board. At the time of sale and installation of the machine it was clearly disclosed by the opp.parties that the manufacturer’s warranty for the machine and its components was only for 3 months from the date of installation. The said fact was clearly mentioned in the installation report also and the customer/complainant has undersigned it without any protest or objection and hence the complainant’s contention that the opp.parties have offered one year warranty for the photocopy machine and that he was surprised to hear the statement of the service engineer are totally incorrect as well as ill motivated and hence unsustainable. The defect if any occurred to the machine was not within the warranty period offered by the manufacturer and all the statements to the contrary are denied by the opp.parties. The defect/complaint alleged to have occurred to the machine was not due to any manufacturing defect and that too not during the guarantee period and hence the opp.party is fully empowered and legally justified in realizing the cost of repairs.. The complaint is not entitled to get the alleged defects to the machine free or cost for the reasons that, the defect occurred not during the guarantee period and further that the said complaint was not due to any manufacturing defect.. Hence these opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint.
The 3rd opp.party filed a separate version contenting that the alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect therefore the 3rd opp.party cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service on this ground.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties
2. Reflies and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts. P1 to P3
For the opp.parties DW.1 was examined and marked Ext. D1
THE POINTS:
The complainant’s case is that he purchased a photocopying machine for Rs.85,017.20 from the 2nd opp.party. After five months the photocopying machine started showing serious defects and became non-operation. The service engineer of the opp.party informed that the defects is with the main control board. Since the machine has warrantY of 1 year, the complainant has demanded to replace the main control board. Opp.parties were not willing to replace the main control board on their expenses. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief.
According to the opp.party1 and 2 at the time of sale and installation of the machine they informed to the complainant that the manufacturer’s warranty for the machine and its components was only for 3 months from the date of installation. Either the opp.parties or the manufacturer of the machine has not offered 1 year warranty. Here as the alleged defect was not due to any manufacturing defect and not during the warranty period they are not liable to replace the main control board on their cost. More over opp.party 1 and 2 contended that the warranty was offered by the manufacturer; so they have any obligation to cure the defect of the machine.
Here the 3rd opp.party the manufacturer only filed version. They have not contested the case neither by cross examining the complainant nor by adducing their evidence.
The questions to be decided is whether opp.parties 1 and 2 have any obligation to cure the defect of the machine and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.
Here the claim of the complainant is warranty protection. Opp.party 1 is the Head Office of 2nd opp.party. The complainant purchased the machine from 2nd opp.party. When the complainant informed the defect the opp.party 2 has sent a service engineer to inspect the same. From the document Ext.P2, P3 and D1 it is clear that Mr. Sabu the service engineer of opp.parties 1 and 2 has installed the machine in the complainant’s premises and after that inspected the defective machine and issued these documents. All these three documents bears his signature. In Ext.P3, he has noted that the problem is caused by defective main control Board. Though the warranty condition is issued by 3rd opp.party, there is no dispute that the complainant purchased the machine from 2nd opp.party, and the Ext.P2, and D1 are filled by the service engineer of 2nd opp.party, Mr.Sabu. Opp.party 2 is the branch office of the opp.party 1. Ext.P2 and D1 shows that the warranty condition is issued by the opp.parties 1 and 2 Ext. P2 and Ext. D1 shows Mr. Sabu Ticked the warranty condition, signed it and issued to the complainant. It is not a printed warranty. So in this context opp.parties 1 and 2 cannot run away from their liability by stating that opp.party only 3 is liable for the defect of the machine and they have nothing to do with the same. All of them are equally liable for the defect arises on the machine. The point found accordingly.
The next point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. Opp.parties 1 and 2 contented that complainant should have proved the defect. The complainant has not taken any steps to establish the manufacturing defect of the machine.
In the version para 6 the opp.parties 1 and 2 stated that on getting a complaint/call from the customer on 21..8..2006, the service engineer of the opp.parties inspected the machine on the same day and found that the photocopy machine was not working since its main control board was damaged and as the warranty protection extended by the manufacturer was for 3 months only from the date of installation, the opp.parties were not supposed to replace the damaged part free of cost
In this case in the version itself the opp.parties 1 and 2 admitted the alleged defect of the machine. There is a well settled principle of law that admitted facts need not be proved. Moreover the service Engineer of the 2nd opp.party reported in Ext.P3 that the alleged defect has been occurred to the machine. Ext.P3 has not been challenged by the opp.parties. In considering the above facts the expert commission report is not necessary.
For finding the deficiency in service, the point to be decided is what period warranty protection was given to the machine. According to opp.parties 1 and 2 the warranty protection was given for 3 month from the date of installation. For that opp.parties 1 and 2 is relying the deposition of DW.1 and Ext. D1. According to them, for establishing one year warranty, complainant forged Ext.P2 document and produced before the Forum. According to the complainant after installation of the photocopying machine Sri.Sabu the service Engineer of opp.party 1 and 2, has given to the complainant the copy of installation report and on the reverse side of the installation report he has ticked the warrantY for a period of 1 year for the machine and 3 months for the accessories. The installation report is marked as Ext.P2. Opp.parties 1 and 2 admitted all entries in Ext.P2 except the ticked portion is the warranty condition portion. From the side of opp.party’s 1 and 2 DW.1[Manager] alone has been examined. Through DW.1Ext. D1 was marked. Ext. D1 is signed by Mr. Sabu, the Service Engineer of opp.party’s 1 and 2 . The evidence which could have been adduced by the opp.party No.1 and 2 to prove the warranty terms and conditions was that of the evidence of the service engineer who has prepared the report, but they have not examined him. So the opp.parties 1 and 2 have not proved Ext. D1 undoubtedly. Dw.1 has any acquaintance with the case. Opp.party 3 has not adduced any evidence to prove their version.
On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. All the opp.parties are jointly liable for the non-replacing of the main control board of the photocopying machine of the complainant
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs..85,071.20 [the value of Photocopying Machine]with 9% interest from the date of complaint to the complainant. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. Opp.parties has to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Failing which the amount will carry 12% interest from the date of complaint
Dated this the 19thday of June, 2012.
=I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Vijayan
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Bill
P2. – Delivery reported and connected documents
P3. – Customer Service report
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. – Aravind
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Installation report
