Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 25.06.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 57,062/- i.e. price of aforesaid Photocopy machine as well as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had purchased a photocopy machine bearing no. F-121/40506/88 on 29.09.1994 from the opposite party.
It is further case of the complainant that when company engineer was informed for installing the same as per agreement he came after thirty four days and installed the same. However as per agreement he did not train the complainant or his assistant for handling the machine.
The complainant has further asserted that after installing the machine it was not in proper order and as such engineer has also conceded in his report that after some time the machine became hot due to which certain parts had been damaged. it is needless to say that some of the parts were also changed during the warranty period.
It is case of the complainant that due to non – co- operation of the opposite party and non – functioning of the machine the complainant had been put to loss of Rs. 62,562/-.
It has been further stated that earlier complainant lodged the complaint before District Forum Khagaria vide case no. 11 of 2000 and after hearing both the parties District Forum Khagaria vide order dated 17.03.2001 had opined that the case is not maintainable at Khagaria Forum and as such the complaint case was returned to the complainant for filing the same in the court of competent jurisdiction.
It appears that thereafter this complaint was filed in Patna District Forum on 04.06.2001 and this Forum after hearing the parties have been pleased to dismiss the case vide order dated 28.02.2009 passed in this case i.e. 144 of 2001. The complainant thereafter moved to the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna by filing Appeal no. 121 of 2009 and the Hon’ble Commission vide order dated 29.04.2015 has been pleased to remand this case for further hearing and as such in this case fresh hearing was done.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed stating therein that this case is hopelessly barred by limitation and delay has not been explained and it has been further stated in written statement that complainant is not Consumer U/s 2(i)(d) of the Act because the complainant has purchased a plain paper copier machine for commercial purpose and he is doing his business in the name and style of Ranjan Photostat situated at Civil Court Campus Khagaria.
It has been further stated that there was warranty of three months from the date of purchase i.e. from 29.09.1994 and machine has properly worked within warranty period.
It has been further stated that as the machine was purchased on 29.09.1994 hence warranty of three months expired on 28.12.1994.
After remand order both parties have filed fresh material in support of their claim.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 evidence by way of affidavit has been filed repeating the same fact as stated in written statement. It has been stated in Para – 5 of this affidavit that HCL provide only corrective maintenance service and replacement of defective parts of the product for the period of 12 months from the date of purchase through its HCL touch service center of India.
Heard and perused the entire record of this case and facts asserted by the parties have been narrated in the forgoing paragraphs in brief.
It is the case of the complainant that after purchasing the aforesaid machine the installation was done by the company engineer after delay of 34 days. This fact has not been denied by opposite parties. In written statement, it is stated by opposite parties that the warranty period is 3 months which expired on 28.12.1994 while the affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2 it is stated that the “HCL provides only corrective maintenance service and replacement of defective parts for the period of 12 months.”
On behalf of complainant several documents have been filed in support of his claim i.e. money receipts dated 02.01.1995, 12.01.1995, 21.11.1994, 15.11.1994, 24.01.1995, 19.01.1995 etc. Apart from aforementioned document challan dated 22.08.1994 has also been filed in support of his claim. The report of engineer has also been filed.
From combined reading of the aforesaid documents it is crystal clear that the opposite parties did not co – operate the complainant and did not act as per norm. The very fact that machine was installed after delay of 34 days clearly shows the conduct of opposite parties.
From the document of the complainant it is also clear that no training was given either to the complainant or his assistant after purchasing the machine. The money receipt shows that one mistri has charged the amount for imparting training to the complainant and his assistant. The engineer report also shows that machine was defective.
The Hon’ble State Commission have been pleased to take note of the aforesaid cash memos and some of which has been referred and hence we have no option but to take into account the aforementioned documents which clearly proves the case of the complainant.
So, far the delay in filing is concerned, the purchase relates to 1994 and complainant had filed the case in 2000in Kagaria District Consumer Forum which was decided on 17.03.2001 and thereafter in 2001 this case was filed in this forum and this case travelled to Hon’ble State Commission and hon’ble State Commission have been pleased to remand this case for further hearing and as such it is not proper to dismiss the case on the ground of limitation.
It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid machine for his livelihood and as such the complainant is a consumer under the act.
For the reason stated above we find and hold that installing the machine after delay of 34 days and not repairing the machine to the satisfaction of the complainant clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
For the discussion made above, we direct the opposite parties to return the price of the aforesaid Photocopy machine i.e. Rs. 57,062/- ( Rs. Fifty Seven Thousand Sixty Two only ) within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 57,062/- ( Rs. Fifty Seven Thousand Sixty Two only ) till its final payment.
Complainant is also directed to hand over the said Photocopy machine at the time of receiving the price of the machine to the opposite parties, if it is in the custody of the complainant.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member (F) President
