IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:    THIRU.K. BASKARAN,                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

        TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI   MEMBER

F.A.No.678/2012

[Against the order passed in C.C.No.88/2008, dated 03.01.2011 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North)]

TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

C.Varshitha,

32, North Mada Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                       ::   Appellant/ Complainant

Vs.

1.       Canon India Private Limited,

          84E, C-6 (Off Central Avenue),

Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2.       Canon India Private Limited,

          2^nd Floor, Mootha Centre,

          23, Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

Represented by its Managing Director.   ::   Respondents / Opposite parties.

For Appellant / complainant                            :  M/s.S.Raveekumar.

For Respondents/ opposite parties 1 & 2         :  M/s.Ramasubramanian Associates.

             This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 02.11.2018 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- 

ORDER

THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.          The unsuccessful complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) herein after referred to as District Forum has preferred this appeal.

2.           For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed before the District Forum.

3.       The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is as follows;-

          That the complainant had filed the complaint claiming refund of Rs.4,01,691/- and compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs towards monetary loss, mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alleging, interalia, that she had purchased a Xerox copier machine manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold by the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,01,691/- on 19.05.2006; that she was informed by the 2^nd opposite party that the said machine was cost effective; that since installation on 29.05.2006 the machine developed various problems regarding quality and turn out, making the assurance given out by the 2^nd opposite party as false;         that she had made several complaints and the service Engineer from the 2^nd opposite party attended the faults on several occasions and some parts were also replaced and inspite of that the machine did not function properly, resulting in monetary loss and mental agony and hence the complainant had sent letters and notices to refund the amount of Rs.4,01,691/- but the 2^nd opposite party did not oblige and hence the complaint;

          The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties with a defence that there was no defect much less  any manufacturing defect in the subject machine; that even at the time of sale the complainant was informed that the subject machine was suitable only for corporate work and departmental work and not for commercial use and inspite of that the complainant had chosen to purchase the subject machine and that the complainant had used non-standard paper viz. 250 gsm paper in the machine whereas only papers of 64 gsm to 163 gsm were recommended to be used and because of the use of non-standard papers it caused damage to the drum of the machine which was attended to by the 2^nd opposite party and some parts were replaced free of cost; that as the machine did not suffer from any manufacturing defect, there is no question of selling defective goods or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.

          Based on pleadings of the respective parties, the learned District Forum has framed three points for consideration and by way of answering those points has held that the complainant is a consumer and he could maintain a consumer complaint and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant was not entitled to any relief and has ultimately dismissed the complaint.

4.       Points for Consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

          1)       Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or whether the opposite parties had manufactured and sold defective machine to the complainant?

          2)       What relief the complainant is entitled to?

5.       Before the learned District Forum, the complainant had filed the proof affidavit and exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit of opposite parties was filed and Ex.B1 was marked.

6.       Point No.1:-         As has been rightly held by the learned District Forum from the letters written by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party and marked as Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A6 and the reply letter written by the 2^nd opposite party it can be seen that in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 there is no whisper regarding any defect much less manufacturing defect in the subject machine; in these two letters the only grievance espoused by the complainant is that the subject machine was not cost effective as was promised at the time of sale and that cost per copy worked out to 40 paise whereas the sales executive and the Service Engineer of the opposite parties had assured that the cost of production per copy would be 25 paise only and hence the complainant had requested the 1^st opposite party to take back the machine which was cost effective and to refund the price paid by the complainant.

7.       It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A4 was written by the complainant after the last date of complaint lodged by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party and attended to by the 2^nd opposite party Service Engineer on 23.09.2006. Even in this Ex.A4 there is no mention regarding the alleged defects developed in this subject machine.

8.       Even though, the opposite parties would specifically state that those minor defects had developed only due to the use of non-standard papers in the machine instead of recommended papers by the complainant, still the complainant had not chosen to deny the same. Further the copies of the job cards annexed to Ex.A5 reply by the opposite party would also show that there was no manufacturing defect which was attended to by the opposite parties and the defects were due to the use of non-standard papers.

9.       Hence, as rightly concluded by the learned District Forum we are also of the view that there is nothing on record to hold that the subject machine was a defective one and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not removing the said defects or in not taking back said subject machine and refunding the price of the machine. Hence we hold that the opposite parties are not guilty of manufacturing and selling defective goods to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this point is answered accordingly.

10.     Point No.2:-         While answering point no.1 we have held that the subject machine was not defective one nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence it follows the complainant is not entitled to any relief and we answered this point accordingly.   

          In the result, this appeal is dismissed without costs.

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                             K. BASKARAN,                                                                       

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.  

INDEX; - YES/No

Bsd/e/JM/Orders