DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 228 of 3.6.2016
Decided on: 1.6.2017
Shiva Digital, Fountain Chowk, HPO Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor Sh.Madan Gupta.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Konica Minolta, Regd.& Corporate Office: 3rd Floor, City Centre,66 Thirumalai road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 through its Managing Director.
- Konica Minolta Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Sandhu Towers, First Floor, BXX3369,Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001 through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate,
counsel for complainant.
Sh.Arun Bansal,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant, Shiva Digital through its Proprietor Sh.Madan Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To provide better service to the complainant
- To pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of business w.e.f.8.82015 till date
- To pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses
- To refund the costs of machine as per prevailing market value, if the OPs are unable to give better services, or
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties i.e. Konica Minolta through Monotech Systems Ltd. claim themselves to be renowned and world-class photographic products manufacturer company, are providing best services to their customers. As such, on 19.9.2012, he purchased a photographic machine model C70HC, Sr.No.AR05041000138, for a sum of Rs.22,44,000/- from the OPs. Vide agreement dated 18.10.2014, the OPs agreed to provide best services w.e.f.19.9.2012 to 18.9.2017 and also to provide toners, developers, drum cartridges and all parts of the machine in question as and when needed. It is averred that since from the date of agreement, the OPs have been providing services and the complainant was paying all the dues/amount of bills. On 8.8.2015, the complainant requested the OPs to provide toners, developers and drum cartridges, but the OPs were putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to this act of the OPs, the photographic machine is lying non-functional and the complainant has been suffering loss in the business. There is mal practice and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. They are also deficient in rendering service for which the complainant is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed the written version, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is filed on false grounds; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits it is stated that the machine has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose. It is further stated that as per the agreement, best services were provided by them to the complainant. The complainant used to provide number of clicks/prints, on the basis of which, monthly bills were generated. It is pleaded that from the month of August,2015, the complainant stopped to share about the use of clicks from the machine, due to which the OPs failed to raise the bills. The complainant has cooked a cock and bull story. There is no mal practice, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence , affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to 6 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Parkash Singh Rawat,Ex.OPA alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the Ops has raised the objection that the relief sought by the complainant, exceeds Rs.20lacs, therefore, as per Section 11(1) of the Act, this Hon’ble Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter .To this effect, the ld. counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that since the Ops have not raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction in their written version, therefore, they cannot raise this objection at this stage. Even otherwise, the complainant has mainly sought the relief for providing better services and to pay compensation on account of loss of business and for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him or in the alternative if, the Ops failed to provide the better services, he has sought the refund qua the machine at the prevailing market value. Since the complainant purchased the machine in question on 19.2.2012 and after depreciation, the value of the said machine could be very less, as such the relief sought by him is less than Rs.20lacs, therefore, as per Section 11(1) of the Act, this Ld. Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
7. It is a settled law that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 7 Oct.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of services, as the case may be, is to be considered alongwith compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Fora and not on the market value basis”.
8. In the present case, the complainant is seeking refund of the cost of the machine at the prevailing market value alongwith compensation of Rs.19,00,000/-/-( Rs.15,00,000/- on account of loss of business w.e.f.8.8.2015 till date + Rs.4,00,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment).From the copy of retail invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.22,44,000/- for the purchase of the said machine. Even the complainant has not disclosed what is the depreciated value of the said machine. If we aggregate the entire claim, sought by the complainant, it exceeds Rs.20lac and as such, as per Section 11(1) of the Act, this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Therefore, we without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant may approach the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh for redressal of his grievance and may request for the condonation of delay, for the time spent before this Forum. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:1.6.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
