Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

340/2011

G R Jayaramakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

J T Copier & Electronics Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 09.11.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                      CC. NO.340 /2011

WEDNESDAY THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2018                                              

G.R. Jayaramakrishnan,

Prop. Thannon Imitation Jewellery,

Rep. by its Authorized agent

O.A. Varadadesigan,

Old No.2/1,

New No.7 Rettai Kuzhi Street,

Tondiarpet, Chennai -81.                                .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

 

J.T. Copier & Electronic Solutions,

Rep. by their Partners M/s. Jonson & Thomas,

15 Aziz Mulk 5^th Street Thousand Lights,

Chennai                                                           ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant                :  Party in person     

Counsel for opposite party            :  Mr.A. Palaniappan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replacement of Xerox machine or to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- paid towards Xerox machine and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he purchased  a second hand Xerox machine from the opposite party after due service.    The complainant further state that  the opposite party J.T. Copier & Electronic Solutions is a partner of Jonson Thomas.    Further the complainant state that the opposite party company is a dealer in Xerox machine.  The complainant purchased a Xerox machine Black and white for his business purpose.   But the opposite party supplied a machine Model 3170 a colour Xerox machine after receipt of Rs.45,000/- with an assurance that it will be replaced immediately after the availability of Black and white Xerox machine.   Further the complainant state that the Xerox machine supplied is a damaged one.   Further the complainant state that the notice served by the complainant the  opposite party has not replaced the machine as assured and has not attended the repairs;  since the machine supplied is a defective one.    As such the act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party is not a partnership firm, it is in entirety a proprietary ship concern.   The cause title of the above  complaint is misleading and concocted one.   Mr.Jonson is not a partner of this opposite party.   The complainant who has purchased a second hand serviced Xerox machine model 3170 from the aforesaid Jonson now files the above complaint as if he has purchased a new Xerox machine from the answering opposite party.   At no point of time the complainant has utilized nor availed the service of this opposite party.  These models are not paid nor passed on to this answering opposite party.   These models are not available nor distributed by the original manufacture in India.   These models are imported through dealers as 2^nd hand machine and after servicing and reconditioning them they were sold to interested parties.     that the complainant is a neighbour doing business of selling imitation Jewellery shop.  In order to enlarge the business of the complainant approached the opposite party to issue a quotation for an imported Xerox machine model IR 3300 which is not available in India.   Mr. Jonson also issued quotation for the sole purpose of availing loan by the complainant from State Bank of India.  The complainant also has not denied the facts even at the time of arguments or in proof affidavit.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that he is a service mechanic and he is not at all a dealer.  He used to service the Xerox machine and recondition it and it will be sold out or supplied to the interested parties.  The complainant  purchased a second hand Xerox machine  from Mr. Johnson which has no warranty or guarantee which is reconditioned one. The opposite party can do service alone the complainant never utilized or availed the service of the opposite party.  No consideration has been paid to this opposite party.  The Xerox machine supplied by Mr.Johnson also not available which should be imported through dealer as  second hand machine alone.   The opposite party also state that  once repaired and reconditioned machines will never match the same new machines.   The cost of the serviced / reconditioned machines will be the cost of the expenditure incurred by the opposite party for their service and for reconditioning the machines with appropriate spares.   When a second hand Xerox machine model 3170i is purchased  and then any one wants to resell it again to the third hand the seller cannot expect the third hand buyer to pay the exact cost what he had paid while buying the second hand machine.    But the complainant  after purchasing the second hand reconditioned machine from a third party but by way of this complaint he is trying to get enrichment by the huge claim without any reasons.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

 

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of Xerox machine as prayed for? Alternatively whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- paid towards Xerox machine as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

 

5.   POINTS 1 & 2 :

         

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly the complainant purchased  a second hand Xerox machine from the opposite party after due service and reconditioned without warranty or guarantee.  The complainant further contended that  the opposite party J.T. Copier & Electronic Solutions is a partner of Jonson Thomas.  But the said allegation was totally denied by the opposite party in this case.   On the other hand both parties has not produced any document to prove the said allegation of partnership.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party company is a dealer in Xerox machine but no records..  The complainant purchased a Xerox machine Black and white for his business purpose.   But the opposite party supplied a machine Model 3170 a colour Xerox machine after receipt of Rs.45,000/- with an assurance that it will be replaced immediately after the availability of Black and white Xerox machine.   Ex.A1 is the invoice for Rs.1,00,214/- for black and white Xerox machine.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the Xerox machine supplied is a damaged one.  Each copy cost Rs.2/- and the cost of the IBT Belt, Toner etc. are heavy; and is unworthy if any service required or service.  Further the complainant contended that the opposite party has not replaced the machine as assured and has not attended the repairs;   even though the machine supplied is a defective one.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party neither replaced the machine nor paid the amount of Rs.45,000/-. 

 

6.     Per contra the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant is a neighbour doing business of selling imitation Jewellery shop.  In order to enlarge the business of the complainant approached the opposite party to issue a quotation for an imported Xerox machine model IR 3300 which is not available in India.   Mr. Jonson also issued quotation for the sole purpose of availing loan by the complainant from State Bank of India.  The complainant also has not denied the facts even at the time of arguments or in the proof affidavit.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that he is a service mechanic and he is not at all a dealer.  He used to service the Xerox machine and recondition it and it will be sold out or supplied to the interested parties.  The complainant  purchased a second hand Xerox machine  from Mr. Johnson which has no warranty or guarantee which is reconditioned one. The opposite party can do service alone the complainant never utilized or availed the service of the opposite party.  No

 

consideration has been paid to this opposite party.  The Xerox machine supplied by Mr.Johnson also not available which should be imported through dealer as  second hand machine alone.  Since the complainant  purchased the reconditioned second hand Xerox machine,  he is not entitled neither replacement nor claim cost of the machine; since the opposite party is a mechanic complainant can avail the service of the opposite party to rectify the defects.   The allegation of cost of Xerox copy and tonner IBT Belt, Toner etc. are attached with service of the reconditioned machine and it may cause damage only on usage.  It cannot be claimed either by way of deficiency in service or replacement.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant purchased the second hand reconditioned Xerox machine and he is not entitled to the relief of replacement of the said machine but service alone entitled on payment of reasonable labour charges and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party shall rectify the defects in the complaint mentioned Xerox machine on payment of the cost of  spare parts  required if any with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 7^th   day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-                - Copy of Perfoma Invoice.

Ex.A2-                - Copy of taken copies details.

Ex.A3- 24.9.2011  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4-                - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A5-                - Affidavit

Ex.A6-                - C.D.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:    Nil

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.