1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY 2. R.VIJAYAKUMAR 3. RAVI SUSHA
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI, PRESIDENT. This complaint is filed by the complainant for getting Rs.24,000/- and other reliefs. In the averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is running Kallidukkil Agencies at Chadayamangalam town. The opp.party is a proprietor of Visakh Marketing at Punalur Municipal Complex. One Ratheesh an agent of the opp.party approached the complainant and offered to sell a Cannon Photostat Machine used by the opp.party for Rs.24,000/- and the complainant agreed purchase the sale for the above same. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.4,000/- by way of Cheque No.13373 of Chadayamangalam Service Co-operative Bank. After purchase for the above Photostat Machine was not functioning properly . The complainant thereupon informed the opp.party but he did not repair the same. Thereafter the complainant issue a registered notice which was accepted by the opp.party. In spite of it the same was not required by the opp.party. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending that the complainant is not a dealer or seller of Photostat machine, that he is a dealer in Wireless machine, that is sold an old Photostat machine to the opp.party for a sum of Rs.24,000/- that at time of sell. T he complainant was informed that the above machine was old and there is no guarantee or warranty for the same that at the time of purchase. The complainant operated the machine and satisfied himself of its performance , that it was after 2 years that the complainant has filed this complaint, that the complainant purchased the Photostat machine used by the complainant by the opp.party. Since he got the same a comparatively low prized, that there was no agreements with regard to the after sale service and therefore no deficiency in service as occurred on the side of the opp.party, that the averment that the opp.party as an agent by name Retheesh has denied. That the complainant has filed this complaint with view to harass to opp.party and hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: {I] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party [ii] Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Points [I] & [ii] As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant purchased an old Photostat machine from the opp.party for a sum of Rs.24,000/- . It is also not in dispute that the said photocopy machine has not warranty or guarantee at the time of sale no agreements with regard to after sale service is also not forthcoming. The complainant has not produce any material to show that he has purchased the above Photostat machine with a condition regarding the after sale service. The contention of the opp.party is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2[d] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereafter this complainant is not a maintainable. As a matter of fact the complainant has admitted that he has purchased this Photostat machine for his business purpose with due to livelihood which is not dispute by the opp.party. Thereafter the complainant will come within the proviso to Section 2 [d] and as such he is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2[d]. The contention of the complainant is that the opp.party is a dealer of Photostat machine were is the definite contention is the opp.party that he is licensed dealer in wireless equipment only. Though the complainant would came that the opp.party is a dealer he has not produced any material to show that the opp.party is a dealer of Photostat machine had he been a dealer naturally the complainant would have produced the receipt or the warranty card and none production of the sale would none production of the used it that the contention of the complainant is not true. As pointed out earlier the Photostat machine involved in this complaint isis an old aged more than five years the complainant has purchased a second hand item without getting any warranty or guarantee for its maintenance as argued by the learned counsel of the opp.party. This machine was purchased by the complainant as per his and in the absence of any warranty or agreements regarding the service or maintenance it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The complainant failed to produce any undertaking made by the opp.party with regard to the maintenance of the Photostat machine. It is worth pointed out in this contract that the complainant purchase the Photostat machine on 20.10.2002 but the complainant is filed on 14.10.2004 that is about 2 years after the purchase. Not evening a scrap of paper was produced by the complainant to show that he has made any request to the complainant with regard to the mal functioning of the Photostat machine from which its opp.party that the machine was functioning properly for about the 2 years. In the absence of a contract for performing any maintenance work no question of deficiency in service will arise. In these circumstances we hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismiss Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN AVHARI: R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Adv. RAVI SUSHA : I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. Radhakrishna Pillai. List of documents for the complainant P1. Advocate Notice. P2. Postal receipt. P3. Acknowledgment card. List of witness for the opp.party DW.1. Muraleedharan. List of documents for the opp.party: NIL
