CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 19/08/2011

CC / 137/2011

Hamid,

S/o.Kunjaluvi,'Aiswarya',

Chandapura,Coyalmannam,

Palakkad District. - Complainant

(By Party in person)

Vs

1. Jayaraj.P.Menon,

Business Development Manager,

Corporate Business Solution,

Head Office, C-10, 2^nd Floor, - Opposite parties

A&T Complex,Stadium Byepass Road,

Palakkad-1.

( By Adv. K.K.Menon)

2. Authorised Signatory/ Manager,

M/s.Cannon Corporate Office India,

IInd Floor, Tower A and B,

Cyber Green, DLF Phase III, Guargeon 122 002

(By Adv. S.M.Unnikrishnan)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Complaint in brief:

The complainant in case has purchased a Canon Photostat machine from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. At the time of purchasing 1^st opposite party has suppressed an important fact that if a stapler pin falls on the machine it will tear the film of the machine and to change it and it will cost of Rs.3,500/-. This is a cheating committed by 1^st opposite party. This has happened consecutively two times 1^st opposite party had been collecting Rs.1950/- for the toner which is available in the market for Rs.500/-. The complainant is earning his livelihood through the Photostat shop since the last 15 years. He had purchased 4 Photostat machines other than Canon. The complainant suffered loss in his business after the purchase of cannon machine. Stating all these facts the complainant sent a notice to the 1^st opposite party, but no reply was obtained.

So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as the price of the Photostat machine and Rs.25,000/- as the loss incurred.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following.

Opposite parties admits the purchasing of the Photostat machine by the complainant. After purchasing of the machine, the service engineer has introduced the machine to the complainant and has given a brief description of do's and don'ts. It will include all these things that the petitioner should not put stapler pin in to the machine. It is common sense that no pin should be dropped in to an electronic machine with a film. In any machine available in the market if a pin is dropped inside if will damage the film. It is not a drawback of this machines sold to the petitioner.

The complainant has stated that the opposite parties had collected Rs.1950/- for the toner which was available in the market at a price of Rs.500/-. The MRP of the Toner is Rs.2083/- after giving a discount it was given to the complainant at Rs.1950/-. The opposite parties has not collected any service charge for changing the toner. From the service report it can be seen that how fast the complaint was rectified. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties are not responsible for the damages due to the misuse and negligence of the complainant. So that opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective affidavits. No affidavit was filed by 2^nd opposite party. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the part of opposite parties. Complainant was cross examined as PW1.

Heard both parties and gone through the documents on record.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issue No.1 &2

The allegation of the complainant is that at the time of purchasing a canon Photostat machine, the 1^st opposite party did not reveal the fact that if a stapler pin falls on the machine it will tear the film of the machine. The complainant also alleges that the 1^st opposite party had been collecting Rs.1950/- for the toner which is available in the market for Rs.500/- Due to the above said complaint of the machine, the complainant suffered loss in the business. Hence the complainant claiming an amount of Rs.75,000/- as price of the machine and compensation.

Ext.B1 shows that the toner was given to the complainant for Rs.1950/-. Ext.B2 shows that the MRP of the Canon Toner is Rs.2083/-. After giving a discount it was given to the complainant at Rs.1950/-. The complainant says that he is getting Toner for Rs.500/- in the market. But no document is produce in this aspect.

Opposite parties admits the purchasing of the Photostat machine. The specific contention of the complainant is if a stapler pin fall on the machine it will tear the film of the machine and to change it. If it is informed to the complainant at the time of purchase the complainant will never purchase the machine. In the Ext.B5 it can be seen that the do's and don'ts are explained to the customer at the time of installation of the machine. Whether the issue regarding stapler pin is included in do's and donot's is not stated in Ext.B5 document. At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that he has been doing this work for 15 years. In all the machines other than Canon Photostat machine it is quite common of falling the stapler pin. But it can be taken easily by themselves. It will not damage the film. Complainant admits that the other mechanical condition of the machine is perfect. The 1^st opposite party attend the complaint whenever informed.

From the above discussion we are of the view that if the Cannon Photostat machine is something different from of the other machines the opposite parties are liable to demonstrate the same in a transparent method. Moreover the 2^nd opposite party has not filed any affidavit.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd day of May, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– True copy of the Letter issued to the opposite party No.1 dt.27.7.2011

Ext.A2 – The original bill for the purchase of Photostat machine from the 1^st opposite party dt.08/06/2010.

Ext. A3 – Delivery Challan for changing of the film (2 in Nos) dt.22/7/11 & 28/5/11

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Cash bill dt.30/5/2011

Ext.B2- Outer cover of NPG 28 Toner to show the MRP.

Ext.B3- Customer Service Report dt.27/05/2011

Ext.B4- Customer Service Report dt.03/06/2011

Ext.B5- Photocopy of Installation Report dated.08/06/2010

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 - K.Hameed

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.