IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 29^th day of October, 2009

Filed on 16.10.07

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.192/07

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Sri.C.V.Vijayan,                                         1.         M/s.Canon India (P) Limited,

(Proprietor, FUTURECOM)                                  2^nd Floor, Tower A&B, Cyber Greens,

Preethi Bhavan,                                                      DLF Phase III, Guragon.122002,

Kottankulangaera Ward,                                         Hariyana, India.

Avalookunnu.P.O.,

Alappuzha-688 006.                                   2.         M/s.Marikkar Motors Ltd.,

 (By Adv.M.Raveendra Das)                                  Pazhaveedu.P.O., Alappuzha-688 009.

            (By Adv.J.Ravindranathan Nair)

3.         M/s.Marikkar Motors Ltd.,

            Door No.50, JCOB’s DD MALL’Shenoy’s Jn.,

            M.G.Road, Kochi,

            Ernakulam, Kerala.

(By Adv.J.Ravindranathan Nair)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant on 16^th July 2007 purchased a Canon copier from the 3^rd opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party. From the very inception of the said machine, the same developed malfunctioning. The complainant instantaneously intimated the matter to the opposite parties. A few days later, a technician from the opposite parties visited the complainant premise to inspect the said copier. The problems as to the appliance remained unchanged. The complainant on 22^nd August sent a letter to the opposite party. A technician from the service centre on 25^th August 2007 examined the appliance the whole day and turned back with out any consequence. In the mean time more problems cropped up. Besides failing to print legal size paper, black strips began to appear on the print outs. The complainant sent registered letters and fax messages time and again to the opposite parties. More than on a couple of occasions, the staffs from the opposite party turned up and attempted in vain to set right the defects of the device. The condition of the machine only changed from bad to worse. Now the machine remains idle with out being able to function. Most of the complainant's clients left him and he sustains enormous monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up.   The 1^st opposite party filed separate version and the other two opposite parties filed joint version.   The opposite parties contend that the Copier was defect-free.   The complainant was ignorant as to the operation of the device. Notwithstanding repeated guidance and coaching rendered by the service engineers and the distinguished technicians of the opposite parties,    the complainant was unable to absorb the     know-how of the working of the machine. According to the opposite party, the copier was all set to print the legal size paper. It is the complainant who is to arrange the alignment in the page set up that suit each sort of paper size. The complainant expects the device to print on its own according to the need of the complainant, the opposite parties allege. The opposite parties argue that the said machine could function only according to the commands the customer handed out to it. What is more the complainant was using inferior paper in the device which also contributed to the malfunctioning of the device. The opposite parties sent so many experts to provide proper guidance and instructions to the complainant as to the operation and handling of the appliance. The problem of the machine falling to print the paper size the complainant wishes is due to the complainant's lack of knowledge and inept handling of the machine. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.

2. The complainant did not make it a point to adduce any evidence. The Asst. Manger of the opposite party filed proof affidavit.

3. Bearing in mid the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-

(1) Whether the Copier in question suffers from any inherent defects?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4. We anxiously perused the materials put on record by the parties. The complainant case is that the Copier the complainant purchase from the opposite parties is inherently defective. The same started malfunctioning from the very day of its purchase. The opposite parties forceful contention is that the device absolutely perfect. The draw back is with regard to the complainant. According to the opposite parties the complainant is incompetent to run the machine. Despite effective guidance from experts, he failed to understand the know-how of the device, the opposite parties allege. Keeping in view, the opposite parties contention we made searching survey of the materials available on record. At the outset it appears that the complainant has filed an application before this Forum seeking the service of expert commissioner to inspect the device. Though the same was allowed and several opportunities were afforded, the complainant was not keen on filing the panel of engineers before this Forum. More over the complainant seemingly did not come forward to cross examine the opposite party who tendered evidence along the line of the opposite parties version. We are of the view that the version advanced by the opposite parties is more probable. Moreover, in the context of the complainant's conduct of not pursing the case seriously anymore after the filing of the complaint, we are further persuaded to accept the version the opposite parties advanced. Needless to say the opposite parties' case sounds plausible and the evidence they let in stands unchallenged. We have no hesitation to hold that the complaint must fail.

For the forgoing reasons, the complaint stands dismissed.  The parties are left to bear with their own costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October, 2009.

                                                                                    Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi                             

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- Nil

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-