Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/58/2009

S.Thripurasundari, Proprietorix, M/s.Adhithya Colour Lab - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emsons Impex Pvt. Ltd.,Rep by its Chairman & M.D& 2 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Anbumani

27 Aug 2022

ORDER

 IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL     … MEMBER

 

C.C. No.58 of 2009

                              Date of filing              :   18.09.2009                                    Orders pronounced on:   27.08.2022

 

Mrs.S.Thirupurasundari,

Proprietrix,

M/s.Adhithya Color Lab,

No.283, P.H. Road,

Opposite Lakshmi Talkies,

Aminjikkarai, Chennai 600 029.                  … Complainant

vs.

 

1.M/s.Emsons Impex Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

1A, Edena, 1st Floor,

97, Maharshi Karve Rd.,

Mumbai 400 020.

 

2. M/s.Emsons Imaging,

A Division of M/s.Emsons (Agencies) P. Ltd.,

rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

1A, Edena, 1st Floor, 97, Maharshi Karve Rd.,

Mumbai 400 020.

 

3. Mr.K.G.Shekar,

Proprietor - M/s.Digital Photo Supply,

18-4A, South Boag Road,

BBC Flats, T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                 ... Opp. Parties

             For Complainant      :  M/s.Arun Anbumani

             For OP No.1             :  M/s.G.Lavanya  

             For OP No.2             :  M/s.B.L.Lavanya

             For OP No.3             :  M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 30.06.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

 

             The complainant herein seeks this Commission to direct the 2nd OP/Agencies to pay to her - a sum of Rs.20 lakh towards damages & loss of business, Rs.15 lakh towards loss of reputation & damage to goodwill and another sum of Rs.15 lakh towards mental agony suffered by her due to the service deficiency said to have been committed by the 2nd OP.

 

             2. For the sake of brevity, the averments in the Complaint are concisely narrated hereunder:-

                The complainant is the Proprietrix of M/s.Adhithya Color Lab.  For her livelihood and that of her family, with the retirement benefits of her husband and by getting bank loan, as family business, the complainant established the said Color Lab with a Negative Machine.  In course of time, she decided to upgrade the existing Negative Machine with a Digital Model.  While so, the 3rd OP contacted her in July, 2005 as the agent of the 1st OP, who is the only Dealer/Distributor in India for the Machine "DKS 1510 Dig. Mini Lab" which is manufactured in France.  The 1st OP informed the complainant that the 2nd OP/Agency is their Group Concern and that the said Agency is the only Authorized Repair & Service Provider in India and hence, all repair works and servicing of the machine during warranty and thereafter would be promptly carried out only by the 2nd OP.   In fact, the complainant was made to believe that only the 2nd OP could rectify any problem that may arise in the Machine and that no other person in the whole of the country could attend any repair therein or do its service.  The cost of the Machine was Rs.33,28,000/- and the complainant got a bank loan to the tune of Rs.24.80 lakh from Canara Bank, Chennai.   She purchased the DKS 1510 Dig. Mini Lab along with 3 Single Track Magazine from the 1st OP  on 10.01.2006 for a sum of Rs.33,28,000/-   Payments were made on various dates through cheques drawn on Canara Bank & Indian Bank, Chennai.  Apart from the said amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid towards insurance and the total value was thus around Rs.33,33,000/-.  The Machine was delivered at Chennai on 14.01.2006 and the same was installed on 18.01.2006 at the Complainant's Lab by the representatives of the 1st and 3rd OPs.  The machine had one year warranty and after the warranty period, the complainant had to enter into an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with the 2nd OP for one year and renewable thereafter every year and she paid huge sum towards AMC Charges.   The 2nd OP shall appoint a permanent qualified service engineer in the city of Chennai to attend the problems in the machine and also to do regular servicing.  It is normal business practice that, for such specialized and sophisticated machines, AMC is entered into with Servicing Agencies that are equipped with well-trained and well-qualified service personnel, who would be conversant with such machines.   The 2nd OP claimed to have a team of qualified personnel directly trained by the Manufacturer, capable of rectifying any defect in the Machine.  It was only believing such representations by the 1st OP, the complainant entered into the AMC with the 2nd OP.   But, from the beginning, the 2nd OP has been acting contrary to the terms of the AMC.  The quality of service rendered by them has always been deficient and inefficient that ultimately caused damage to the Machine and loss of income in the business.  The complainant has lost several days of valuable business due to the delay in servicing by the 2nd OP and even as on date, several complaints remain unattended despite numerous reminders.   In this regard, the complainant has cited about a dozen of instances where the 2nd OP miserably failed either to provide service at needed hours or to provide replacement for the worn-out items and thereby, huge business loss has resulted.   The complainant is now fallen into deep financial crunch only because of the negligent attitude of the 2nd OP.   The complainant had professional photographers, who had regularly hired the complainant's services for printing since 2008 and now, they all have left the complainant's Lab due to the poor quality in prints and inability to meet the time schedule.   The complainant was earning an average of Rs.1,30,000/- gross income per month before the Machine was rendered non-functional due to the negligence and service deficiency on the part of the 2nd OP.  Had the 2nd OP, who owes the complainant a duty to provide proper service as per the AMC,  acted diligently and promptly, she would not have suffered huge loss in the photo lab business.  Hence, for all the damages and loss suffered by her at the hands of the 2nd OP, by filing the present complaint, she seeks for issuance of a direction against the 2nd OP, as aforementioned.

            

             3.  In the written version filed by the 1st OP, among other things, it is mainly stated that their role was limited to the extent of importing the machinery and delivering the same in an impeccable condition which they have performed diligently and that, since the averments and allegations of service deficiency are made against the 2nd OP alone, who according to the complainant, failed to perform their part of the obligations arising from the AMC in between the complainant and the 2nd OP, there is no point in arraying this OP as a party to the proceedings and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as it pertains to the 1st OP.

 

             4. In the same line, the 3rd OP has filed a written version stating inter alia that the grievance of the complainant is only against the 2nd OP and therefore, unnecessarily, the present OP is arrayed as a party to this litigation and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as it relates to the 3rd OP.

 

             5. The 2nd OP/Agency has filed a detailed written version, wherein, among other things, it is mainly stated thus:-

             Even before purchasing the machine from the 1st OP, the complainant was already an entrepreneur as she was carrying on business under the name and style of Kellys Colour Lab by obtaining Form-B under Central Sales Tax Registration, dated 29.10.2003, and the name of the said Lab was later changed as Adhithya Color Lab.   In her capacity as Proprietrix of the Lab, she obtained Service Tax Registration Form ST-3 issued on 01.10.2003, favouring Kellys Color Lab with a different address.  C-Form Registration and Service Tax Registration are issued only to business persons and therewith, the complainant is able to buy products at concessional rate of Sales Tax @ 4%, whereas, it would be charged at 12% for individuals and this ipso facto would go to show that the equipment purchased was only for commercial purpose. 

             The 2nd OP provided the best of services to the complainant under the AMC and this aspect would be evident from some of the communications emanated from the complainant.   After knowing fully well that the Machine is  France-Made and that any spare part thereof that needs replacement shall have to be imported from France, the complainant came forward to purchase the machine.  It is quite natural that orders would be placed for spare parts from nook and corner of the country and at times, it is fairly possible that they may run out of stock and the time consumed in importing the spares and dispatching the same to the consumer like the complainant would definitely take considerable time and all these aspects were clearly explained to the complainant at length, at the time of purchase.  Therefore, she should have arranged alternative measures to manage the business and she cannot hold this OP responsible for her own shortcomings in managing the business.   If at all there is any delay in procuring the spares and replacing the worn-out parts, it is only because of the time consumed in getting the same imported and further, in many instances, in the place of worn-out parts, standby material was immediately provided by this OP which factum is admitted by the complainant herself.  The machine had one year warranty and the very averments in the complaint would go to show that the machine was working at par for about 2 1/2 years and any machine that was put to use for 2-3 years would undergo some wear and tear.  When it is the actuality that this OP would be able to replace any worn-out part of the Machine only if it was available with them, the time taken for getting the parts imported from the foreign country cannot be attributed as service deficiency in the light of Clause 5 of the AMC whereby, the complainant was made to understand that the 2nd OP does not accept responsibility for delays in the supply of Labor or Parts caused by circumstances which are beyond their control.  Thus, there cannot be any justification for the complainant to maintain the present complaint against this OP and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

             6.  In support of the claim and counter-claim, the parties have filed their respective proof affidavits and 49 documents have been marked as Exs.A1 to A49 on the side of the complainant, however, no document is filed by the other side.

 

             7. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit at the outset that, by believing the representation that 2nd OP have qualified service team, directly trained by the Manufacturer & capable of rectifying any sort of defect in the Machine, the complainant had entered into the AMC with the 2nd OP.  But the said representation turned out to be a falsehood as the reality was that the 2nd OP in fact had not appointed any qualified service engineer for the City of Chennai and the persons, who visited the complainant's lab, from other places, after much delay, were neither adequately qualified nor technically trained service engineers, who lacked expertise even to diagnose the problems in the machine.  Due to the recurrent instances of lapses on the part of the 2nd OP either in sending a well-versed technical hand or in providing replacement of the worn-out parts, the complainant lost several days of business resulting in huge loss of her earnings.  According to the learned counsel, the lapses on the part of the 2nd OP are numerous and, for instance, the failure on their part to replace the damaged Nozzle and also one another important & primary component of the Machine viz.,  Relay, that was also damaged, even after the visit by their technicians and despite several oral and written reminders, would go to show that they miserably failed in providing a prompt service as per the AMC and hence, they must be held accountable for all the losses arising from the various instances of service deficiency as detailed in the complaint. It is specifically stated that non-replacement of the Relay ultimately led to failure of the IMI500 Scanner, 2 Tank PCB Board, Driver Motor, etc. creating further more issues in the machine.   In fact, the Motor was already serviced for more than 4 times and the complainant was thus constrained to purchase a new one.  Had the Relay been replaced in time by the 2nd OP, the consequential issues would not have arisen.  It is incumbent on the part of the 2nd OP to ensure that standby parts of the machine are available with them so that the same can be provided to the customer at the time of need. The lame excuse given by them for the delay that it was due to the time consumed in import of the spare parts only shows the unprofessional, callous and negligent attitude of the 2nd OP towards their customers.  Added to the above misery, the technicians sent by the 2nd OP on many occasions were neither adequately qualified nor technically trained service engineers, not even able to diagnose/fix the basic problems in the machine.   In one instance, just to do re-plugging, which the 2nd OP's local representative could not do, their GM had to come all the way from Mumbai, which instance would reveal that the Agency lacks professional technicians to deal with even an ordinary issue.   On various occasions, as detailed in the complaint, the complainant incessantly suffered the impact of poor service  under the AMC which adversely affected her business resulting in huge loss, for which, it is just and proper that the 2nd OP shall have to be directed to compensate the loss by allowing the present complaint, he pleaded.

 

             8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd OP, at the outset, would submit that, before selling the Machine to the complainant, the OPs clearly informed her in detail that it is not an indigenous product and it is manufactured in France and, for replacement of any spare-part post-purchase, the item shall have to be imported from France and such process may take considerable time.  Therefore, owing to the uniqueness of the product and the impossibility of getting any worn-out spare part instantly since the material has to come from France, she ought to have arranged alternative measures to manage the business in the event of the Machine facing any problem due to worn-out parts.  In the light of the clear condition under clause-5 of the AMC, any delay in reaching of Labor as well as the spare-parts cannot be so loosely alleged to be a sort of negligence or service deficiency.  In this regard, learned counsel has drawn our attention to clause-5 of the AMC that states that the 2nd OP does not accept responsibility for delays in the supply of labor or parts caused by circumstances which are beyond their control - for illustration,  non-availability of parts caused by inability of the manufacturer or supplier to supply such parts, shipping or transportation delays, strikes or other causes.  Learned counsel further adds that the allegations of the complainant are absolutely baseless for the reason that whenever the item to be replaced was in stock, the 2nd OP immediately provided the same and, on occasions, they provided standby spares and when the item was not at all available and had to be imported from the place of Manufacture at France, they resorted to import of the same which process would really consume a considerable amount of time.  To illustrate that they acted with all promptness, learned counsel, while pointing out that the machine purchased with one year warranty was put to maximum use for about 3 years, would cite an instance that, having been exposed to heavy usage, when the machine underwent some wear and tear resulting in damage of the Relay, the service personnel of the 2nd OP had bypassed it to ensure that the machine was operational till a new Relay is arranged.  Similarly, when the MSB Unit of the machine that had a warranty for 5 year needed replacement, it was immediately complied with, however, it was the complainant, who had problems in meeting the expenses connected to servicing of the Board.  Further, in order to establish her case that the after-sale/AMC services rendered by the 2nd OP were of sub-standard and defective, it is incumbent on her part to adduce expert evidence/opinion as to the working condition or performance of the Machine and, in the absence of the same, she cannot expect anyone to merely believe the averments in the complaint for fastening any liability on the 2nd OP.  In that regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinoo Bhagat (Decision dated 06.05.2009, rendered in Civil Appeal No.7159 of 2003), wherein, the Apex Court re-emphasized the position that the report of the experts should ordinarily be given preference as judges are not experts in such matters. At any rate, since every allegation levelled against the 2nd OP is either false or hypothetical or frivolous, the complaint absolutely lacks merits and it deserves dismissal at the threshold, she pleaded.

 

             9. Learned counsels for OPs-1 and 3, by stating that, in the absence of any allegation against OP Nos.1 and 3, it ex facie appears that they have been unnecessarily arrayed as parties to the proceedings and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as it pertains to those two OPs.

 

             10. We have gone through the records and considered the rival submissions advanced on either side.

             The only issue that needs to be answered is - as to whether the 2nd OP has committed any service deficiency by not providing prompt & proper services to the complainant as assured under the AMC and whether the said OP can self-exclude themselves from the contractual liability by a generous interpretation of clause-5 of the AMC in their own favour ?

             Before proceeding to deal with the issue, it would be proper to look at the counter-claim and argument of the 2nd OP that the complainant is not a consumer on the ground that originally, she carried out the Photo Lab Business in a different name for 'commercial purpose' and it had Service Tax Registration with which she bought products at concessional rate of sale tax @ 4%.  The said claim cannot be looked into even for the sake of argument since it is not supported by any tangible evidence.   If a person purchases and utilizes a Machinery only for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood and that of the family by way of 'self-employment', he/she definitely comes within the ambit of 'Consumer' and when the rival side claims otherwise, mere  mentioning of certain details here and there in the Version would not be sufficient, rather, there must be some proof adduced to substantiate the counter-claim and certainly, on the mere self-serving details, the contrary argument cannot be given any consideration. Thus, we repell the said contention made by the 2nd OP.

              Coming to the issue of service deficiency, the complainant lays her claim on the basis of the AMCs which she had entered into with the 2nd OP/Agency that seems to be a Division of the 1st OP and both of them are functioning in the same office at Mumbai.  It appears that the 1st OP represented to the complainant that, after the warranty period of one year, for any repair work or servicing of the Machine purchased for a sum of Rs.33 lakh, there is no other servicing agency in the whole of the country except the 2nd OP.  It is seen from the 1st AMC, marked as Ex.A4 which was entered into during March-2007, that for the said maintenance contract, the costs involved was Rs.38,000/- per annum apart from 12.36% extra Service Tax along with applicable governmental taxes, levies, etc.  Further, as per clause-3 of the AMC under the caption "Repair Service", if the customer requests for repair/service not during normal working hours, it will be subject to payment of extra charges.   As per the above said clause, among other things, the customers shall also pay travel cost of the engineer from nearest service hub and further sum would also be charged for the accommodation of the Engineer.  By agreeing all such terms, the complainant has entered into the AMC with the 2nd OP which is said to be the one & only Servicing Agency for the Machine in question.

             Now, let us see, having charged so much for the services to be offered by them, as to whether the 2nd OP fairly reciprocated as a Servicing Agency.  From Ex.A4/AMC, we find that it commenced from March, 2007.  From Ex.A5/Mail, dated 09.11.2007, sent by the complainant to the 2nd OP, it is seen that the Chemical Tube Nozzles of the Machine were removed since worn-out even during the currency of warranty in the previous year.  The complainant specifically made a mention thereof in Ex.A4 to the following effect:-

             " We have been repeatedly requesting you to station a qualified Engineer at Chennai to provide uninterrupted service to the machines in and around Chennai.  Whenever we face problems either in software or in  hardware, we find that Mr.Nandakumar is away from Chennai to Karnataka or Kerala and his services are available only after 3 or 4 days.

             We have requested you to provide us with the chemical tube nozzles for the past one year. Mr Vikas had assured to supply the same within a few days, which were removed during the Guarantee period itself.  But till date we have not received them.  ..."

In the above communication, the complainant addressed the 2nd OP to ensure uninterrupted service and also to resolve a long pending issue over non-supply of nozzles. Subsequent to the above communication, the complainant sent two reminders under Exs.A6 and A7, dated 24.11.2007 and 28.11.2007 but in vain.

              In this regard, it is the stand of the 2nd OP in their Version that the issue of nozzles was of the year 2006 and hence, it was an outdated one and should be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. In other words, according to them, since the said issue was of the year 2006, there was no reason for the complainant to prefer the complaint after three long years.  It is also the stand of the 2nd OP that if the complainant was discontent with their AMC, they could have very well opted for somebody else who provides better services than them.  They also take shelter under Clause-5 of the AMC on 'Delays' which states that the Agency does not accept responsibility for delays in the supply of labor or parts caused by circumstances which are beyond their control.   Thus, with reference to the aforesaid instance of deficiency in service alleged against the 2nd OP over non-supply of Nozzle and pendency of the request in that regard for more than one year, it is their main defence that the said issue is an outdated one and that, in terms of Clause-5 of the AMC, they cannot be held responsible, as the said clause excludes the liability for delays in the supply of labor or parts caused by circumstances which are beyond their control. 

             In our considered opinion, the above defence of the 2nd OP would be of no avail for various reasons.  The complainant purchased the Machine for a huge sum of Rs.33 lakh with their own funds and also by getting loan from the Banks.  She has also paid the amount for the AMC.  The 1st OP, while selling the Machine, made it clear that the only servicing agency in the whole of India is only the 2nd OP, who would provide the best services under the AMC.  Therefore, a consumer/customer like the complainant, who has no other Servicing Agency other than the 2nd OP, would have entered into the AMC with a fond expectation that the Servicing Agency would live upto their commitment of providing the best services.  While so, after entering into the AMC, on the Machine facing a problem, when the customer calls upon the Servicing Agency to attend to the same, it is the bounden duty on their part not only to respond as expeditiously as possible but also to routinely update the customer about the progress being made, till such time the issue is completely resolved/rectified. Here, the 2nd OP has not filed any detail as to when the order for importing the Nozzles was placed with the Manufacturer at France and what is the 'beyond the control circumstance' that stalled the import process, etc.  In such circumstances, by mere reference to clause-5, the Agency cannot get off from the responsibility and, wherever there is a delay in supply of labor or parts, there is an implied/reciprocal contractual obligation on their part to duly inform the customer about the circumstances that went beyond their control and resulted in delayed supply of labor or parts.  We reiterate that they are duty-bound to inform the customer about the date on which the order was placed with the Manufacturer at the foreign country, the follow-up made by them subsequent to placement of the order, progress made in procurement, etc. and if, despite all their efforts that was already made known to the customer, they could not get the item supplied by the manufacture, then only, they would be justified in resorting to Clause-5.  No Servicing Agency can avoid the contractual responsibility under a clause like the present instance without even informing the details of the "beyond the control circumstances".   To put it otherwise, any endeavour on the part of the 2nd OP to justify the delayed supply of labor or parts "without explaining the circumstances that were beyond their control" would only render the whole contract one-sided and undoubtedly, the resultant failure would amount to clear service deficiency. In that perspective, we further add, on testing the relevant clause in the AMC, if it is apparent that the same runs to the undue advantage of one side whereby, the valuable rights of the customer in getting prompt services are defeated, to do substantial justice, the loss caused to the customer has to be assessed from the materials made available and the Service Provider shall have to be fastened with liability proportionate to the degree of the service deficiency committed by them and the extent of damage suffered by the customer.  Here, it seems, till date, the Part sought for by the complainant was never supplied.  Without informing the customer/complainant about the steps taken by them in procuring the spare-part, the 2nd OP have come up with a brazen defence that the issue was an outdated one and related to the warranty period, forgetting the fact that, even during the currency of the 1st AMC, the issue was not addressed and, as stated above, not even a Mail or intimation on the availability or otherwise or prospective schedule for supply of the spare-part was ever furnished to the complainant from their end.   We have no material whatsoever to infer about the "beyond the control circumstances" that prevented the 2nd OP from providing replacement of the nozzle and  the reasons in keeping the issue pending for the whole period of the 1st AMC.  Further, the argument of the 2nd OP to the effect that if not satisfied with their services, they can very well opt for somebody else is completely out of logic and, in a sense, it only shows their irresponsible conduct for the reason that the complainant cannot exercise such option since there is no other Servicing Agency available in the whole Country to deal with the Machine except the 2nd OP.   Although this one single instance speaks much about the act of negligence and service deficiency on the part of the 2nd OP, in the other instances, we find that on occasions, they acted promptly by providing replacement of the MSB Unit, giving standby spares till the worn-out part is repaired, etc.  However, the argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd OP that in a type of these cases, without expert opinion, the issues cannot be decided, does not help them in any way for the reason that here, we have not gone into the technical issues of the machine, rather, into the aspects of negligence and service deficiency with reference to the obligations under the AMC.  It is now reported that, due to the continuous acts of service deficiency on the part of the 2nd OP even during the 2nd round of the AMC in solving the issues of the machine, it was almost rendered useless and that, after getting permission of this Commission, the complainant has sold it for a paltry sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, apart from selling her house to repay the loan taken from the Bank for purchasing the machine and to pay the debts incurred to run the machine. According to the 2nd OP, even if it is to be held that there was deficiency in service in their part, the complainant cannot be granted any sum more than Rs.17,000/-. But, as mentioned already, the Service Provider shall have to be fastened with liability proportionate to the degree of the service deficiency committed by them and the extent of damage suffered by the customer.  In that regard, although the complainant has sought for compensation under three heads, which in total  comes to Rs.50 lakhs, for arriving at a reasonable sum towards compensation, we take into account the relevant factors that the Machine had completed its warranty period of one year; that, during the currency of 2nd AMC, the 2nd OP has provided by-stand spare-parts for continuation of the business and also promptly replaced the MSB Unit of the Machine that had 5 year warranty; that the Machine had depreciation since it was used to considerable extent for about 2 1/2 years and that it was ultimately sold.  On contrasting the claim of the complainant with the above factors, we are of the view that directing the 2nd OP to pay a sum of Rupees Ten Lakh as compensation for the service deficiency would be fair enough and meet the ends of justice.

            

             11. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, by directing the 2nd OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) as compensation for the service deficiency, along with Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards litigation expenses, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and, in default, the 2nd OP shall pay the said amount along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment.

 

                    

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                         R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

•         Date                               Description of Documents

 

		Copy of visiting care of the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of tax invoice authenticated by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of receipt issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant towards payment of Rs.33,28,000/- for the supply of DKS 1510 Digital Mini Lab
	March 2007	Copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the chemical tube nozzle under warranty and for supply of spare parts for paper jam
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party reminding about the spares
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the supply of spares and about their Engineer
		Copy of mail from the opposite party regarding quotation for spares
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding spare part for bleach rack
		Copy of reply from the opposite party
		Copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the supply of Relay and by-passing of the same
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party expressing the complainant’s disappointment about their service
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party attaching a photo of the board
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the problem in MSB Unit
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the machine failure and poor service provided by the local engineer
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party highlighting various problems in the machine
		Copy of Service Call Report
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the delivery of CU Board
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding the maintenance and servicing of the machine
		Copy of Service Call Report
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party reminding for a quotation and MSB
		Copy of a reply from the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party expressing dissatisfaction of the service rendered by them
		Copy of reply fromthe opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party reminding them about the PCB Board
		Copy of reply from the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regardingCensor
		Copy of reply mail from the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party regarding problems with the Parameters and a reminder on PCB Board
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party as a reminder on various issues
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party expressing the complainant’s disappointment on various issues
		Copy of reply from the opposite party
		Copy of the mail addressed to the opposite party as a reminder on various issues
		Copy of reply from the opposite party
		Copy of reply from the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party
		Copy of mail addressed to the opposite party
		Copy of mail from the opposite party
		Copy of loan repayment details
		Copy of loan taken after September 2008
		Copy of trading and profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.2007 to 31.03.2009
		Copy of the notice issuedby the petitioner /complainant to the 1st & 2nd respondents / opposite parties
		Copy of returned covers
		Copy of telegraph receipt
		Copy of email addressed to the respondents
		Copy of report submitted by the Service Engineer

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                         R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT.

 

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/AUGUST/2022.