Date of filing : 22/12/2015
Order No. 20 dt. 16/04/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a house wife and the income of her husband is meager. In order to help her husband for maintaining of the family expenditure the complainant started to run as business for selling paper products for maintaining her livelihood. The complainant purchased 4 items from o.ps. on 31.1.15 and she paid the amount of Rs.1,61,904.76 plus VAT 5% of Rs.895.24 and total price of those items of Rs.1,70,000/-. The machine was delivered and installed at the complainant’s business place at 66, Old China Bazar Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-1. Within a few months the machine started to create problems which o.ps. were informed, but they failed and neglected to replace and repair the said defect of the machine for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
The o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that o.p. no.1 is private limited company and they are authorized for sales and service of the said machine. The said machine was installed on the same day of the purchase and after installation the concerned engineer of o.p. no.1 issued an installation report wherein the complainant’s husband Md. Shakil’s name was recorded as key operator and the demonstration was provided to said Md. Shakil and he put his signature on the document after getting the proper instructions from the engineer regarding the operation of the said machine. On the basis of the report of non functioning of the said machine the engineer of o.ps. examined the machine and found that the total printing was made in respect of the said machine numbering 40,057 copies were printed by the said machine and the machine was found okay. The complainant’s husband put his signature on the service report. Subsequently on 23.2.15 and 13.8.15 whenever the report was made regarding the said machine the engineer visited the complainant’s place and examined the machine and found okay and the machine was functioning properly. All through the husband of the complainant put his signature on the service report. There was no defect in the said machine. The complainant in order to have the illegal gain from o.ps. manufactured the case and filed this case falsely for which the case should be dismissed awarding cost to o.ps. for filing such false and frivolous case against o.ps.
In their w/v o.p. no.3 stated that from the customers service report it appears that there was no defect in the said machine. Only the paper jam problem took place which was minor in nature. Whenever o.p. no.3 was informed the service engineer of the place of the complainant and examined the machine and found that it was working properly and husband of the complainant put his signature on the service report whereby the endorsement of the fact of functioning of the machine was in proper manner was shown. The case filed by the complainant has got no merit and thereby o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the machine for maintaining her livelihood?
- Whether there was any defect in the said machine?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a house wife and the income of her husband is meager. In order to help her husband for maintaining of the family expenditure the complainant started to run the business for selling paper products for her livelihood. The complainant purchased 4 items from o.ps. on 31.1.15 and she paid the amount of Rs.1,61,904.76 plus VAT 5% of Rs.895.24 and total price of those items of Rs.1,70,000/-. The machine was delivered and installed at the complainant’s business place at 66, Old China Bazar Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-1. Within a few months the machine started to create problems which o.ps. were informed, but they failed and neglected to replace and repair the said defect of the machine for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that o.p. no.1 is private limited company and they are authorized for sales and service of the said machine. The said machine was installed on the same day of the purchase and after installation the concerned engineer of o.p. no.1 issued an installation report wherein the complainant’s husband Md. Shakil’s name was recorded as key operator and the demonstration was provided to said Md. Shakil and he put his signature on the document after getting the proper instruction from the engineer regarding the operation of the said machine. On the basis of the report of non functioning of the said machine the engineer of o.ps. examined the machine and found that the total printing was made in respect of the said machine numbering 40,057 copies were printed by the said machine and the machine was found okay. The complainant’s husband put his signature on the service report. Subsequently on 23.2.15 and 13.8.15 whenever the report was made regarding the said machine the engineer visited the complainant’s place and examined the machine and found okay and the machine was functioning properly. All through the husband of the complainant put his signature on the service report. There was no defect in the said machine. The complainant in order to have the illegal gain from o.ps. manufactured the case and filed this case falsely for which the case should be dismissed awarding cost to o.ps. for filing such false and frivolous case against o.ps.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that from the customers service report it appears that there was no defect in the said machine. Only the paper jam problem took place which was minor in nature. Whenever o.p. no.3 was informed the service engineer of the place of the complainant and examined the machine and found that it was working properly and husband of the complainant put his signature on the service report whereby the endorsement of the fact of functioning of the machine was in proper manner the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and thereby o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it was admitted fact that the complainant purchased the machine from o.p. nos.1 and 2 and o.p. no.3 being the manufacturer of these machine. From the materials on record it appears that the machine was installed at the place of the complainant and the complainant has stated that during the warranty period the complainant had to face problems regarding the operation of the said machine for which the complainant had to inform the o.ps. frequently for providing the service. In order to substantiate the said claim the complainant filed some documents including the service report. It appears from those documents that whenever the complainant informed the o.ps. regarding the defect in the said machine the service engineer visited the place of the complainant and found that the machine had some minor problem regarding the accumulation of paper inside the said machine. The complainant’s husband Md. Shakil got demonstration from o.ps. and he used to operate the said machine. It is also found that whenever the service engineer visited the place of the complainant the husband of the complainant put his signature expressing his satisfaction regarding the service problem met o.ps. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 alleged that the case is not maintainable since the complainant never operated the said machine for her livelihood. Her husband runs the said business who is also employed in other place for which the license of the said business was obtained in the name of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. emphasized that the business was never run by the complainant and accordingly the case is not maintainable. But on perusal of the record we find that the business started in the name of the complainant and whenever the complainant has stated that in order to maintain her livelihood she started to run the business and in order to controvert the said fact o.ps. could not file any documentary evidence that the business is not being run by the complainant. In view of the said fact we hold that the case is maintainable. So far as the allegation made by the complainant is concerned that the machine had various problems during the warranty period for which the complainant had to inform the o.ps. for providing the service. It appears from the record that o.ps. provided the service to the complainant and only some defects arose and within the short period of time more than 40,000/- copies were printed. If there would have been any manufacturing defect, so much printing would not have come out from the said machine. Apart from the said act in order to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant did not file any petition praying for appointment of an expert to prove that the machine had the inherent defect. In view of the facts and circumstances we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.579/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
