Date of FIling : 09/02/2016
Order No. 15 dt. 19/02/2018
The case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a jumbo Xerox machine from of model no. TDS 300 MFS from M/s CADD Centre India pvt Ltd and installed at M/s Manna Xerox situated near the premises of Diamond Harbour Sub Divisional Criminal Court compound,24 parganas after getting loan from at a very high rate of interest from SBI Diamond harbor with monthly payment of Rs 12,000/-. M/s CADD Centre India pvt Ltd with installation of the jumbo Xerox machine signed an agreement ( FSMA) with M/s Manna Xerox to the effect that it would provide necessary service with supply of drum, developer, toner in running the jumbo Xerox machine. Thereafter, jumbo Xerox machine rolled over without any trouble for two years. On 08.07.2013 M/s CADD Centre India pvt Ltd left out of the contract with M/s Manna Xerox in running the jumbo Xerox machine introducing M/s Monotech System Ltd (OP) , a new entrant after entering into a new agreement, to take its place for running the same jumbo Xerox machine by providing necessary supply and service. Considering the reputation of the new entrant complainant signed a new agreement with them on 08.11.2013 for obtaining the same service and supply in running the Xerox machine. But after the contract M/s Monotech India Ltd (op) failed to provide the service for a period of one year. As a result of which complainant could not pay the installments in time. Complainant compelled to purchase necessary supplement required for the Xerox machine from the op in cash and somehow rolled over the machine. However, op undertook the agreed job with repairing of the programme board and tonner unit in running the jumbo Xerox machine. But op failed to provide desired level of service as desired by the complainant and the machine had gone out of order from the next day. Complainant knocked the op, time and again, to roll over the machine and such attempts yielded no fruitful result. The jumbo Xerox machine of value Rs10 lakh as stated by the complainant remained defunct during 18.04.2014 to 05.09.2014, 16.09.2014 to 20.09.2014, 23.09.2014 29.10.2014, 20.02.2015 to 09.02.2015 and 01.05.2015 to 06.05.2015 . Thereafter it could not be rolled over from 19.05.2015 any further and the op left the machine undone. Complainant caused to knock the op by issuing legal notice on 08.09.2015 and thereafter by dispatching reminder on 07.11.2015. . Finding no other alternative complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to repair the machine without any further payment or to refund of Rs5,25,000/- with interest @ 14% per annum wef the date of purchase with compensation of Rs.50,000/-for unfair trade practices ,Rs 60,000/- against nonfunctioning of the machine, Rs 1,60,000/- for non supplying of toner box, drum and developer , Rs1,00,000/- for loss of goodwill of the enterprise and litigation cost of Rs50,000/-
O.p.s contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. Ld lawyer of the op argued that complainant had been running his business with good many Xerox machines with required number of employees at a prominent business place and such large establishment might go against the claim of the complainant that his business of running Xerox machines is for self employment for his livelihood. On 10.03.2015 op had supplied programming, fitted Xerox to run the machines. It is ridiculous to blame the op for bank loan which is the concern of the complainant himself. Ld lawyer of the op argued that after expiry of the agreement op is not bound to provide free service. Therefore, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided:-
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any 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 of the op argued that complainant had been running his business with good many xerox machines with required number of employees at a prominent business place and such large establishment might go against the claim of the complainant that his business of running Xerox machines is for self employment for his livelihood. On 10.03.2015 op had supplied programming, fitted xerox to run the machines. It is ridiculous to blame the op for bank loan which is the concern of the complainant himself. Ld lawyer of the op argued that after expiry of the agreement op is not bound to provide free service. Therefore, o.p
prayed for dismissal of the case.
From the submission of the complainant, it is acknowledged that complainant procured a Jumbo Xerox Machine form M/s CADD Centre India (P) Ltd against loan from SBI, Diamond Harbour, the payment of which are to be done by installments of Rs.12,000/- p.m. The machine had been rolled over by supplying spare parts, drum, developer and toner by the seller of the machine. According to the complainant the machine provided hasslefree service to M/s Manna Xerox without any hazards or trouble for period of two years. The necessity of utilizing the warranty card did not arise during the two years. In the complaint petition ld lawyer of the complainant had not felt the necessity of furnishing any information regarding warranty period or the warranty card for the proceeding of this case. The service so far provided by the seller of the machine had not been reported against. But allegation of the complainant against o.p. is not concrete but scattered for which in the prayer of the complaint petition complainant has demanded 6(six) types of relief and the amount of those relief had been claimed without any justification. Complainant has demanded refund of the cost of the machine which is stated as Rs.5,25,000/-in the prayer of the petition whereas it is cited as Rs10,00,000/-in the pleadings of the complaint without submitting any invoice of the Xerox machine as issued by M/s CADD Centre India pvt Ltd . Complainant had not mentioned whether the full amount had been paid to the o.p. as consideration money against the service to be rendered ? If it had been paid in full where are the documents of payments?
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that after 08.11.2013, the new entrant M/s Monotech India Ltd., towards providing service to the Jumbo Xerox machine had taken the charge to provide service in necessity. It is evident that an agreement has been signed between the parties on 08.11.2013 but the service which would have to provided has not been defined specifically against which deficiency in service can be ascertained. Such incompleteness towards determining the extent of service to be provided by the op created a hollow and impractical framework which is good for nothing for calculating deficiency in service. For this complainant demanded a service in respect of time whereas the agreement itself limited the service in respect of CPML with minimum 200 LM. Jumbo Xerox machine is a complicated device and its smooth running is dependent on three factors, firstly on the intrinsic quality of each of internal components of the machine & their integral functioning, secondly on the external components & supplement as required for the machine as procured by the complainant and thirdly on the service to be provided by the op as mentioned in the agreement dt 08.11.2015. Complainant demanded overall functioning of the jumbo Xerox machine whereas the agreement would not allow him to do so. Complainant can demand deficiency against the third factor ie, against CPML. OP cannot be asked against the other two factors as mentioned above.
With the above points in view we hold that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case CC no.53 of 2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p.
Supply only one certified copy of this order to each of the parties free of cost.
