Hindustan Business corporation,Calicut V/S Biju Jose - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

255/2000

Biju Jose - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Business corporation,Calicut - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2007

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 255/2000

Biju Jose						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Hindustan Business corporation,Calicut Modi Zerox Ltd,Hydrabad Canara Bank ,Thondenadu						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

ORDER By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as given under: The Complainant is an educated youth applied for loan under PMRY Scheme with the recommend of District Industries Center, Wayanad for starting a Photostat Center under self employment scheme. The Opposite Party No.1 is the dealer of the Photocopier Machine, the Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer, the Opposite Party No.3 provided the loan for purchasing the (Contd...... 2) - 2 - Photocopier on 09.10.1996. The representation of Opposite Party No.1 issued a proforma invoice of copier model No.5223 21C PMA -(3) for a sum of Rs.90,708/- Opposite Party No.1, at the time booking, already agreed the proforma invoice. The Complainant was also informed by the Opposite Party No.3 what type of copier is most suited for him. On 30.10.1996 the Complainant went to the bank when the Opposite Party No.1 was present there, the Opposite Party No.3 made the Complainant to sign some papers for the issuance of loan to purchase the Photocopier Machine. On 27.01.1997 the Photocopier of SL. No.5510 was delivered to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 at Vellamunda where the Complainant to started the Photocopier Center. The change of serial number was noted by the Complainant. The machine delivered to him was not complied with the type that he booked. The Opposite Party No.1 and 3 when asked about the change of the number, they informed the Complainant that the Photocopier SL. No.5510 is far better than the type that he booked. The Complainant started the Photocopier Machine at Vellamunda. The Photostat Machine immediately after starting the center appeared to be defective in many times. The defects of machine could not be rectified within 6 months after the starting of Photocopier Center, the Complainant had to spend more than Rs.30,000/- for the repair alone. The Complainant had suffered heavy loss. Meanwhile the Complainant paid more than Rs.10,000/- towards loan. It was known to the Complainant very lately that the machine supplied to him was not suitable enough for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 acted in collusion in supplying the Photocopier in SL. No.5510 to the complainant. When the Opposite Party No.3 was told it is said that an another loan would be given to the Complainant for the purchase of an another Photocopier machine. Anyhow no loan was issued to the Complainant, the Complainant was forced to shut down the Photostat machine on April 1999 because of the constant defects of the machine. The Photostat Center was closed when the Complainant realized that it is worthless to conduct the center. (Contd ...... 3) - 3 - The Complainant had also given a complaint to General Manager, District Industries Center, Wayanad. The Opposite Party No.3 initiated revenue recovery steps against the Complainant for the repayment of the loan. As per the demand notice the Complainant had to give Rs.1.07,783/- with interest to the Opposite Party No.3. The Revenue Authorities attached the Photocopier apart from that steps were taken by the Revenue authorities to collect the amount from the Complainant from other sources also. The Photocopier which supplied to the Complainant had no demand and it was not suited for running a Photostat Center. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were knowing the facts that the Complainant availed the loan for conducting a center of Photostat. Due to the defects of the machine now and then the Complainant had to spend money for its repair. More than Rs.30,000/- were already spent by the Complainant in the course of 3 years. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.75,000/- there may be a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to drop the steps of revenue recovery to recover the amount due from the Complainant and also not to claim the amount from the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally liable to give the Complainant Rs.50,000/- the amount which was already spend by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed version on their appearance. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 admitted the purchase and supply of the Photocopier, according to them the copier had warranty up to 22.4.1998 and denied the booking of photocopier on 30.10.1996 at the Office of Opposite Party No.3. The allegation in the complaint regarding the model number, expenditure incurred and other loses by the Complainant etc are denied. The supply of the copier to the Complainant was in due regard with the letter dated 28.12.1996. It is also contented that the Complainant is not a consumer and therefore the Complainant is to be dismissed with cost. (Contd....... 4) - 4 - Opposite Party No.3 filed a version contending that no cause of action arose against him more over they are only a financier. The District Industries Center evaluated the loan proposal and sent the project report. The Complainant selected to buy M+odi Xerox copier and proforma invoice for the same was handed over. The Opposite Party No.3 advanced a loan of Rs.81,000/- to the Complainant and Demand Draft for Rs.85,901 was issued in favour of the Modi Xerox towards the price of the Copier. The Photocopier supplied was absolutely in conformity with what was booked. The allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.3 had assured an another loan for the purchase of an another Photocopier were denied. The Opposite Party No.3 is to be paid the loan amount along with its interest. The complaint is not sustainable and is to be dismissed. The Points which are to be decided are: 1.Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 2.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 to 3. 3.Relief and costs. Points No.1 and 2: The points No.1 and 2 can be considered together. The Copier Machine was supplied to the Complainant on 27.01.1996 as admitted by the complainant. The Complainant was in use of the machine even after the warranty period. The complaint is filed on 21.11.2000 no dispute from the part of the Complainant is raised within the limitation period of 2 years. According to the Complainant the defects started shortly after installation of copier machine. Under section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is to be filed within two years of the arising of the cause of action. The complaint is clearly barred by limitation under section 24 (a) of the (Contd....... 5) - 5 - Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant was in use of the machine for more than three years even after noting that the machine supplied was a different one that is 5510 instead of 5223. Whether the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 services were deficient are not to be looked in to being complaint itself is barred by limitation. The Opposite Party No.3 is only the Financier. The contention of the Opposite Party No.3 that the Complainant's allegations are motivated with personal interest and the disputes raised is nothing but an act of curtailing. The steps taken by the Opposite Party No.3 to recover the amount cannot be lightly taken. The points No.1 and 2 are found against the Complainant. Point No.3: In regard of the findings in points No.1 and 2 an elaborate consideration of the point No.3 does not require. The Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and cost. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order upon cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of November 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1. Biju Jose Complainant. CW1. Ramkumar Photocopier Technician. - 6 - Witnesses for Opposite Parties: OPW1. Ashly Service Manager Xerox. OPW2 G. Chandrasekaran. Bank Manager. Exhibits for Complainant. A1. S.S.I Registration Certificate. A2. Prospectus of Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) A3. Proforma Invoice. dt: 09.10.1996. A4. Pamphlet of Photocopier Model. A5. Proforma Invoice. dt: 30.10.1996. A6. Form of Way Bill. dt: 22.01.1997. A7. Bill dt: 09.01.1998. A8. Copy of Service Call Note. A9. Bill dt: 14.05.1997. A10 Series. Receipt. A11. Copy of complaint. dt: 12.08.1999. A12 Copy of complaint. dt: 10.07.1999. C1. Commission Report. dt: 08.03.2004. Exhibits for Opposite Parties: B1. Special Power of Attorney B2. Copy of Letter. dt: 28.12.1996. B3. Copy of Proforma Invoice dt: 28.12.1996. B4. Project Report. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

ORDER By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as given under: The Complainant is an educated youth applied for loan under PMRY Scheme with the recommend of District Industries Center, Wayanad for starting a Photostat Center under self employment scheme. The Opposite Party No.1 is the dealer of the Photocopier Machine, the Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer, the Opposite Party No.3 provided the loan for purchasing the (Contd...... 2) - 2 - Photocopier on 09.10.1996. The representation of Opposite Party No.1 issued a proforma invoice of copier model No.5223 21C PMA -(3) for a sum of Rs.90,708/- Opposite Party No.1, at the time booking, already agreed the proforma invoice. The Complainant was also informed by the Opposite Party No.3 what type of copier is most suited for him. On 30.10.1996 the Complainant went to the bank when the Opposite Party No.1 was present there, the Opposite Party No.3 made the Complainant to sign some papers for the issuance of loan to purchase the Photocopier Machine. On 27.01.1997 the Photocopier of SL. No.5510 was delivered to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 at Vellamunda where the Complainant to started the Photocopier Center. The change of serial number was noted by the Complainant. The machine delivered to him was not complied with the type that he booked. The Opposite Party No.1 and 3 when asked about the change of the number, they informed the Complainant that the Photocopier SL. No.5510 is far better than the type that he booked. The Complainant started the Photocopier Machine at Vellamunda. The Photostat Machine immediately after starting the center appeared to be defective in many times. The defects of machine could not be rectified within 6 months after the starting of Photocopier Center, the Complainant had to spend more than Rs.30,000/- for the repair alone. The Complainant had suffered heavy loss. Meanwhile the Complainant paid more than Rs.10,000/- towards loan. It was known to the Complainant very lately that the machine supplied to him was not suitable enough for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 acted in collusion in supplying the Photocopier in SL. No.5510 to the complainant. When the Opposite Party No.3 was told it is said that an another loan would be given to the Complainant for the purchase of an another Photocopier machine. Anyhow no loan was issued to the Complainant, the Complainant was forced to shut down the Photostat machine on April 1999 because of the constant defects of the machine. The Photostat Center was closed when the Complainant realized that it is worthless to conduct the center. (Contd ...... 3) - 3 - The Complainant had also given a complaint to General Manager, District Industries Center, Wayanad. The Opposite Party No.3 initiated revenue recovery steps against the Complainant for the repayment of the loan. As per the demand notice the Complainant had to give Rs.1.07,783/- with interest to the Opposite Party No.3. The Revenue Authorities attached the Photocopier apart from that steps were taken by the Revenue authorities to collect the amount from the Complainant from other sources also. The Photocopier which supplied to the Complainant had no demand and it was not suited for running a Photostat Center. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were knowing the facts that the Complainant availed the loan for conducting a center of Photostat. Due to the defects of the machine now and then the Complainant had to spend money for its repair. More than Rs.30,000/- were already spent by the Complainant in the course of 3 years. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.75,000/- there may be a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to drop the steps of revenue recovery to recover the amount due from the Complainant and also not to claim the amount from the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally liable to give the Complainant Rs.50,000/- the amount which was already spend by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed version on their appearance. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 admitted the purchase and supply of the Photocopier, according to them the copier had warranty up to 22.4.1998 and denied the booking of photocopier on 30.10.1996 at the Office of Opposite Party No.3. The allegation in the complaint regarding the model number, expenditure incurred and other loses by the Complainant etc are denied. The supply of the copier to the Complainant was in due regard with the letter dated 28.12.1996. It is also contented that the Complainant is not a consumer and therefore the Complainant is to be dismissed with cost. (Contd....... 4) - 4 - Opposite Party No.3 filed a version contending that no cause of action arose against him more over they are only a financier. The District Industries Center evaluated the loan proposal and sent the project report. The Complainant selected to buy M+odi Xerox copier and proforma invoice for the same was handed over. The Opposite Party No.3 advanced a loan of Rs.81,000/- to the Complainant and Demand Draft for Rs.85,901 was issued in favour of the Modi Xerox towards the price of the Copier. The Photocopier supplied was absolutely in conformity with what was booked. The allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.3 had assured an another loan for the purchase of an another Photocopier were denied. The Opposite Party No.3 is to be paid the loan amount along with its interest. The complaint is not sustainable and is to be dismissed. The Points which are to be decided are: 1.Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 2.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties 1 to 3. 3.Relief and costs. Points No.1 and 2: The points No.1 and 2 can be considered together. The Copier Machine was supplied to the Complainant on 27.01.1996 as admitted by the complainant. The Complainant was in use of the machine even after the warranty period. The complaint is filed on 21.11.2000 no dispute from the part of the Complainant is raised within the limitation period of 2 years. According to the Complainant the defects started shortly after installation of copier machine. Under section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is to be filed within two years of the arising of the cause of action. The complaint is clearly barred by limitation under section 24 (a) of the (Contd....... 5) - 5 - Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant was in use of the machine for more than three years even after noting that the machine supplied was a different one that is 5510 instead of 5223. Whether the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 services were deficient are not to be looked in to being complaint itself is barred by limitation. The Opposite Party No.3 is only the Financier. The contention of the Opposite Party No.3 that the Complainant's allegations are motivated with personal interest and the disputes raised is nothing but an act of curtailing. The steps taken by the Opposite Party No.3 to recover the amount cannot be lightly taken. The points No.1 and 2 are found against the Complainant. Point No.3: In regard of the findings in points No.1 and 2 an elaborate consideration of the point No.3 does not require. The Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and cost. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order upon cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of November 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1. Biju Jose Complainant. CW1. Ramkumar Photocopier Technician. - 6 - Witnesses for Opposite Parties: OPW1. Ashly Service Manager Xerox. OPW2 G. Chandrasekaran. Bank Manager. Exhibits for Complainant. A1. S.S.I Registration Certificate. A2. Prospectus of Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) A3. Proforma Invoice. dt: 09.10.1996. A4. Pamphlet of Photocopier Model. A5. Proforma Invoice. dt: 30.10.1996. A6. Form of Way Bill. dt: 22.01.1997. A7. Bill dt: 09.01.1998. A8. Copy of Service Call Note. A9. Bill dt: 14.05.1997. A10 Series. Receipt. A11. Copy of complaint. dt: 12.08.1999. A12 Copy of complaint. dt: 10.07.1999. C1. Commission Report. dt: 08.03.2004. Exhibits for Opposite Parties: B1. Special Power of Attorney B2. Copy of Letter. dt: 28.12.1996. B3. Copy of Proforma Invoice dt: 28.12.1996. B4. Project Report. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.