BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 28th day of April, 2006.
C.C No.20/2006
Ch.Ramakrishna Rao, S/o Late Ch.Jogarao, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, Business,
Proprietor, Sri Kala Xerox Centre, D.No.68/53-C, Opp. Hajira Degree College,
Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. M.Ankaiah S/o not known to the complainant, Major, Hindu, Business, Service Engineer (Canon Xerox), Canon Digital Copier Systems,
D.No.1-283, Besides Jyothi Chicken Centre, Near Ration Shop, Meerpet, Hyderabad.
2. P.Brahmaiah, S/o Nageswara Rao, Major, Hindu, Business, Office in Charge (Canon Xerox) Canon Digital Copier Systems,
D.No. 1-283, Beside Jyothi Chicken Centre,Near Ration Shop, Meerpet, Hyderabad.
3. Sri.P.Vijaya Kumar, Major, Hindu, Business,
Principal, Pallavi Technical Institute, Meerpet, Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 set exparte, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This C.C of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to return the Xerox machine, refund of Rs.10,000/- which has been collected by the opposite party No.1 of opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.3 towards repair and recondition of the machine with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its payment till the date of realization, to refund legal notice charges borne by the complainant in issuing legal notice, to award costs of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation to the complainant for the loss sustained by him due to the act of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 in not carrying out repairs and recondition and not delivering the Xerox machine within time and award costs of this complaint.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he runs a Xerox machine under self employment and it is the only source of his income for livelihood. The opposite party No.1 is the service engineer of Canon Xerox and opposite party No.2 is the office incharge and a relation of opposite party No.1. That the opposite party No.1 is proprietor of Typewriting Institute situate near the office premises of opposite party No.1 and he being the owner of Canon Xerox model No.3225 which was in running condition with some minor repairs and he intended to recondition the said Xerox for extra life. He requested the opposite party No.3 to advice for a rightful technician who can repair and recondition the Canon Xerox. The opposite party No.3 has introduced opposite party No.1 who came down to Kurnool and verified the machine meant for repairs and recondition and assured that the machine is fit for carring out repairs and for reconditioning the same. The opposite party No.1 has advised him to shift the said Xerox machine to the office of the opposite party No.1 assuring that the machine is fit for carrying out repairs and for recondition and the opposite party No.1 further assured to recondition the Xerox machine within a period of one week from the date of placing it in his premises. On 18-11-2005, hiring a Tata Spacio Vehicle, the complainant has lifted the Xerox machine from his premises from Kurnool to the premises of opposite party No.1 at Hyderabad and incurred an expenditure Rs.2,300/- towards the transportation charges. The opposite party No.1 has once again thoroughly checked the machine and estimated the repairs and recondition charges of the Xerox machine as Rs.10,000/- and asked to send the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- within one week to carryout repairs and recondition and assured delivery of the Xerox machine at his expenses to the premises of the complainant on or before 5-12-2005 to Kurnool. Further the opposite party No.1 has advised the complainant to send the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- within one week to start the repairs and recondition. As per the understanding, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25-11-2005 in the SB Account No.53143 of the opposite party No.3 who introduced to opposite party No.1 and he (complainant) informed the same to the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- that was deposited by him and on instructions of opposite party No.1 paid to the same to the opposite party No.2 who received the amount on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and a receipt for the same was received by the opposite party No.1 on 25-11-2005 acknowledging the receipt of amount of Rs.10,000/- from him on behalf of opposite party No.1 as instructed by the opposite party No.1. Inspite of receiving the entire amount towards the repairs and recondition charges, the opposite party No.1 has not carried out any repairs and recondition of the Xerox machine and not delivered it within a week from 25-11-2005 as promised by him further he made several telephone calls to opposite parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 but there is no response from their end and even no reply for his legal notice dated 12-1-2006 even though the same were acknowledged by them. The said Xerox machine is still with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 has not carried out repairs and reconditioning and though more than two months passed away, there is no response from the said opposite parties. Thus they have caused wrongful loss to him who leads his life by operating Xerox and caused huge monitory loss to him inspite of receiving full amount towards the repairs and recondition charges, even though the complainant has made the entire payment to the opposite party No.1 and No.2 through opposite party No.3 to avail his services for repairing and reconditioning the Xerox machine and handed over the machine incurring huge transport charges, but the opposite party No.1 and 2 had neglected and committed deficient and scarce service and opposite party No.3 is not responding in carrying out the repairs and reconditioning machine and not delivering the machine at his premises, even today to this date at Kurnool. Hence the act of opposite party No.1 and No.2 amounts deficiency of service and there by entitling him the reliefs which he sought in this case.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties neither appeared before the Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defense and there by remained exparte.
4. While such is so with the opposite parties, the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite parties towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought:?
6. The Ex.A1 is the counter foil of savings account pay in slip of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kurnool dated 25-11-2005 for Rs.10,000/- to the SB Account No.53143 of the opposite party No.3. The Ex.A2 is the stamped receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 25-11-2005 issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant the said amount was received through the opposite party No.3 towards repairs charges to CANON XEROX MACHINE MODEL No.3225, belonging to the complainant on behalf of opposite party No.1. The Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice, dated 12-1-2006 issued by the complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 under registered post acknowledgement due, and demanded legal notice charges of Rs.500/- apart from the reliefs which he sought on behalf of the complainant form the above said opposite parties. The Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are the acknowledgements of opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 respectively in receipt of the said legal notice (Ex.A3). The Ex.A7 is the receipt dated 19-12-2005 for Rs.2,300/- issued by the owner of TATA SPACIO VEHICLE bearing No.AP21 V 8474 towards hire charges for transportation of said Xerox machine on 18-11-2005 from Kurnool to Hyderabad and back from the complainant to enable the opposite party No.1 of opposite party No.2 to attend to the repairs of the said Xerox machine. The Ex.A8 is the quotation issued by SARATH COPIER SERVICES, CHENNAI-18 dated 21-4-2006 to the complainant for Rs.45,000/- towards CANON – 3225 (R.C.) photo copier with standard accessories. Further the complainant given publication of the notice in PRAJA SAKTI TELUGU DAILY dated 12-4-2006 informing to the opposite party No.1, 2 and 3, the said case matter is posted to 17-4-2006 at 10.30 AM to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool to put their objections if any in person or through their counsels, failing which the above matter will be heard and determined exparte. The advertisement bill No.14154 for Rs.250/- dated 13-4-2006 from the said paper authorities also enclosed along with the said publication. In support of this (complainant) case filed sworn affidavits of I.N. Sudhakar and P.Bhaskar who accompanied the complainant in the vehicle hired on 18-11-2005 at 6.00 AM and lift the Xerox machine of the complainant from his premises in Kurnool, to the premises of opposite party No.1, Hyderabad in the presence of opposite party No.1. Even the sworn affidavit of P.Govardhan Reddy, the owner of Tata Spacio Vehicle bearing No. AP21 V 8474 is filed to have given the said vehicle for hire to transport of the said Xerox machine from Kurnool to Hyderabad.
7. As seen from the above cogent record and material in support of the contentions of the complainant, the act of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in not returning the said machine and refund of Rs.10,000/- which has been collected by the opposite party No.1 and 2 through opposite party No.3 towards repairs and recondition of the machine as is remaining exparte inspite of receipt of the Forum notices, legal notice and paper publication, the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 and 2 is certainly amounting to failure on the part of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in performing their obligation of repairs and recondition of the said Xerox machine inspite of receiving the consideration and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as the bonafidies of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
8. As the opposite party No.3 is the only party through him the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to opposite party No.1 of opposite party No.2 for which the receipt was issued by the opposite party No.2, as such there is no cause of action against the opposite party No.3, the complaint against the opposite party No.3 is dismissed.
9. In the result and in sum up of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 jointly and severally to return the machine duly rectifying its defects in satisfactory working condition or to pay the cost of the machine i.e. Rs.45,000/- in case of their inability to rectify the defects and return the machine in satisfactory working condition, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant at the conduct of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and to pay Rs.13,800/- (i.e. Rs.10,000/- paid for repairs and recondition of the Xerox machine + Rs.2,300/- paid hire charges for transportation of the machine + Rs.1,500/- as costs of the case) and the compliance of the supra stated award within a month of the receipt of this order, in default the opposite party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally should pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of said default till the date of realization.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcriber by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 28th day of April, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Counter foil of S.B.I Main Branch, Kurnool. Dt.25-11-2005 for
Rs.10,000/-
Ex.A2 Receipt, Dt.25-11-2005 issued by opposite party No.2 to opposite party
No.3 for Rs.10,000/-
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice to opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3,
Dt.12-1-2006.
Ex.A4 Postal Acknowledgement and receipt to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgement and receipt to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A6 Postal Acknowledgement and receipt to opposite party No.3.
Ex.A7 Receipt for payment for Rs.2,300/- Dt.19-11-2005.
Ex.A8 Quotation of Sarath Copier services, Chennai, Dt.21-4-2006 for
Rs.45,000/-
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
2. M.Ankaiah S/o not known to the complainant, Major, Hindu, Business,
Service Engineer (Canon Xerox), Canon Digital Copier Systems, D.No.1-283,
Besides Jyothi Chicken Centre, Near Ration Shop, Meerpet, Hyderabad.
3 P.Brahmaiah, S/o Nageswar Rao, Major, Hindu, Business, Office in Charge
(Canon Xerox) D.No.68/53-C, Opp. Hajira Degree College, Kurnool.
4 Sri.P.Vijaya Kumar, Major, Hindu, Business, Principal, Pallavi Technical
Institute, Meerpet, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
