BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.96/2008 Between Complainant : William Thomas, Nampyaparambil House, Kaliyar P.O, Vannappuram, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.M.Sanu) And Opposite Parties : 1. Gilgi, Proprietor, Infosys Systems Sales & Services, Kodamullil Building, Opp.Panchayath Office, Vannappuram. 2. Arun, Distributor, Samsung & Xenitis Company, Thodupuzha. (Both by Advs: Tajlee Tom & Lissy M.M) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT
The complainant is running a professional store in the name and style "Jesus Stores", Vannappuram. The Ist opposite party is running a Computer Sales and Servicing Centre in the name and style "Infosys Systems" near Vannappuram Panchayath Office. The 2nd opposite party introduced himself as the district distributor of Samsung & Xenitis Company. They approached the complainant for getting an order of a multi purpose machine which is a Computer cum Photostat Machine. The cost for the machine was Rs.36,686/-. The Ist opposite party informed the complainant that Rs.10,000/- was the advance amount of the same and the balance payment was in 20 equal installments and for that purpose 20 cheque leaves were given. The loan was arranged by the Bajaj Finance Company, 3 years guarantee and 1 year warranty was issued for the machine. They also assured the complainant that the machine can take 3000 copies. On 10.05.2007 the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party, 20 cheque leaves of Cathelic Syrian Bank, Vannapuram Branch was also given as security for the balance amount. But when the machine was started working it showed mechanical defects and the complainant was not able to take even 500 copies from the machine. When the machine was in trouble the matter was informed to the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party advised the complainant that there is no defect in the machine and it would be cured by filling ink in the tuner. As per the advice of the opposite party, the complainant refilled ink in the tuner, but the copies were seen spread by ink. This also reported to the Ist opposite party, as per the request of the Ist opposite party, the machine was given to the Ist opposite party's office, the Ist opposite party returned the same after curing the defects. But again the defect was repeated then the Ist opposite party told that there is no guarantee or warranty to the machine and told to buy a new machine. The DTP machine also became defective by infection of fungus. The Ist opposite party supplied defective machine to the complainant by canvassing the order in the name of Samsung company. Due to the non-performance of the machine, the complainant caused heavy loss and the complainant was not able to complete a lot of works given from the surrounding offices to his shop. So the petition is filed for getting refund of money of the Photostat machine supplied by the opposite parties.
2. In the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is contended that the Ist opposite party is not having any direct sale of computer and no services for the same. The Ist opposite party supplied a branded computer PC which is of Xenitis company, a printer of Samsung Company and a UPS of IBAX from the 2nd opposite party named Spider Techno Soft, Kottayam to the complainant. The transportation charge of Rs.250/- was only received by the Ist opposite party from the complainant. The toll free phone numbers were written on the machine if any complaint comes to any items of the machine. The bill of the machine was supplied for arranging loan from Bajaj Finance Company. The Ist opposite party never received any papers or documents from the complainant. The complainant directly given all the documents for getting loan from the finance company. The loan availed for the machine is now became due and the complainant is filed in order to avoid the payment of the loan. The allegation of the complainant that the Ist opposite party supplied Photostat machine to the complainant is not correct. The Ist opposite party supplied a Samsung computer printer which is of Samsumg worth Rs.11,500/- and not a Photostat machine. If any defect comes to the machine, the company's own Mechanic can repair the same. Similarly if any complaint comes to the computer, the Xenitis company mechanic can repair the same. The manufacturers of the computer and printer are not made as a party to the litigation. It is also admitted by the complainant itself that the tuner of the printer was changed by the complainant himself. The machine became defective by the repair of the complainant himself. If it was a Photostat machine it would have a cost of Rs.70,000/-. So there is no deficiency in service from the part of the Ist opposite party and if any repair in the machine that should be informed to the manufacturers of the machine who are Xenitis Infotech Private Limited, Kalkota, Samsung Electronic Company etc. and they are absolutely responsible for the same and the petition may be dismissed.
3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, it is admitted that they have supplied a branded PC of Xenitis company, a computer of Samsung and a UPS of IBAX. The printer and UPS were having a guarantee of 1 year and the matter was intimated in the invoice itself. The machine was supplied on 10.05.2007 and the petition is filed only on 18.05.2008. So the warranty period is already expired for printer, UPS and computer monitor. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- for the purchase of UPS, computer and printer from the Bajaj Finance Company. Two installments were paid by the complainant and never paid any other installments. So the petition is filed only for avoiding the re-payment of the loan. The opposite party supplied a branded computer, printer and UPS and so the manufacturers are only liable for the service of the same. No Photostat machine was supplied by the opposite party. If there is any complaint to the Samsung printer it can be repaired by the authorized Service Centre at Kochi. But it is revealed that the machine became defective because of the unauthorized refill of the ink cartridge of the complainant. The manufacturer is not made as a party to the complaint and so the petition is not sustainable.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1.
5. The POINT :- The complainant purchased a multi purpose machine, including computer, printer and Photostat from the Ist opposite party, which is supplied from the 2nd opposite party on 10.05.2007. Both parties assured a warranty of 3 years for CPU and one year warranty for all other parts. The Photostat machine in the same was became defective. The opposite party was relectuant to clear the mistake because it was caused due to the mishandling of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1, he deposed that the machine was purchased for Rs.36,686/- by availing a loan and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- at the time of purchase and 20 cheque leaves were given for the payment of balance amount. The opposite parties assured that, 3000 copies can be taken from the machine. Ext.P1 is the invoice issued from the Ist opposite party for the same and Ext.P2 is the brochure issued by the Ist opposite party. But when he started working the same, he was not able to take even 500 copies from the machine. The matter was reported to the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party changed the tuner of the machine but again it became defective. The complainant produced the machine to the Ist opposite party's office and after two days, the complainant got the machine repaired. The complainant himself transported it to the complainant's shop. But unfortunately it became fully defective, but the opposite party responded that the company is not responsible for the same and so they denied. As per the complainant, the opposite party delivered low quality machine in the name of Samsung company.
6. As per the written version of the Ist opposite party, they are not having any sale or service of the computer or printer. The Ist opposite party received Rs.250/- from these purchase, which is the transportation charge of the computer, printer etc. from the 2nd opposite party's office at Kottayam to the complainant's place at Vannappuram. The Ist opposite party supplied one branded computer of Xenitis P.C and a printer of Samsumg company. It was told to the complainant that the servicing of the same would be through the company only. The telephone number was also written in the machine. The bill of the above machine was given to the finance company who arranged loan. The said opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the details of warranty is shown in Ext.P1, the details of the manufacturer and address are also written in it. The machine supplied to the complainant is a multi purpose one, in that Photostat, printer and scanner are provided. The complainant never approached opposite parties for filling of ink in the printer. If the ink is refilled in the printer by the complainant, then the warranty will not be given. No complaint was given to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant in the warranty period. The bill as per the Vat was given to the Ist opposite party. There is no warranty card other than Ext.P1 was given to the complainant. The Ist opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. It is admitted by the 2nd opposite party that the Ist opposite party is the dealer of 2nd opposite party. Even if they have supplied the machine of the authorised companies, only Ext.P1 bill and Ext.P2 brochure was issued to the complainant for the purpose of warranty to the machine. As per Exts.P1 and Ext.P2, no specific warranty card is annexed. The 2nd opposite party himself admitted that Ext.P1 will not show the warranty offered by a specific company. So the only remedy for the complainant is to get the warranty from the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. If any defect is caused to the machine, the complainant can only approach the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. As per the complainant, the Ist opposite party has deliberately avoided the service of the machine. The performance of the machine was not according to the assurance given by the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the machine. It is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite party. Hence we think that the opposite parties are liable to make the machine defect free to the complainant. The complainant purchased the machine by availing loan from finance company. Due to the defect of the machine, the complainant was not able to repay the loan amount and so he is facing legal proceedings from the finance company. Heavy loss is caused to him because of the non-functioning of the Photostat machine. Ext.P3 is the loan statement, which shows that the entire loan amount is due. The opposite parties should pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant due to the non-functioning of the machine.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to repair defect caused to the multipurpose machine which includes PC, Printer, Photostat and scanner with their own expense, and also pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconvenience and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of January, 2009
Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - William Thomas On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Arun Mohan Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Invoice dated 10.05.2007 for Rs.36,686/- issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P2 - Photocopy of brochure issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P3 - Loan Statement On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
| 
