BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.415/2008 against C.C.No.728/2007, District Forum-III, Hyderabad,
Between:
S.L.Gupta,
Prop.Net Comet,
S-19, OKAZ Complex,
Opp:Humayunnagar Police Station,
Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-28. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. New Techno Graphics,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Sri Lakshmi Narayan,
20, 3rd floor, Unity House,
Abids, Hyderabad.
2. Canon India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
302, IIIrd floor,
Ashoka Bhoopal Chambers,
Sardar Patel Road,
Secunderabad-3. Respondents/
Opp.parties.
(Respondent No.2 not necessary party in appeal)
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.Gopi Rajesh Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.G.Vinod Reddy
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.728/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Canon CLC 700 copier machine with standard accessories for an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 20-4-2006. The complainant submits that opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer of the said machine and it is only for eking out of his livelihood that he purchased the said photocopy machine with printer. On 27-4-2006 the problem arose and paper was jammed and the opposite party’s personnel attended to the defects but could not rectify them. Once again on 23-5-2006, 02-6-2006, 16-6-2006, 21-6-2006, and 27-6-2006 the machine did not work properly. The opposite party’s personnel attended to some of the problems on some days but the problems continued to recur and vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued a letter on 21-8-2006 and he requested the opposite party to take back the defective machine but did not receive any response. Once again he sent another letter on 27-9-2006 and further on 27-12-2006 but did not receive any reply. The printer was not connected and the complainant suffered monetary loss and he requested the opposite party in the letter stating that Rs.40,000/- was paid to the opposite party together with colour, toner charges of Rs.8,000/- and therefore he requested the opposite party to refund Rs.48,000/- and got issued another letter through courier on 2-8-2007 and once again did not receive any response. Hence the complaint seeking direction to refund Rs.48,000/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.40,000/- and costs.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that he is the dealer in second hand photo copy machines which are imported in as is where is basis and the complainant was informed of the same and was also told that there would be no warrantee extended and cost of spare parts are to be borne by the purchaser. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- only on 20-4-2006 and Rs.10,000/- each in June and July but did not pay the balance of Rs.5,000/-. A demand was raised on 2-8-2006 but the complainant did not pay any amounts. Opposite party no.1 has been attending to all the complaints and there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
Opposite party No.2 also filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant may have purchased the second hand machine from opposite party No.1 by paying the amounts and that opposite party No.2 is not concerned with any such transaction and that opposite party No.1 is not at all a dealer of opposite party No.2. The complainant also did not file any documents such as bill, warrantee card and service report to prove that the photo copy machine manufactured by opposite party No.2 is faulty. Opposite party no.2 is only authorized to sell canon products in India and that the subject machine i.e. Canon CLC 700 model was neither directly or indirectly sold by them and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 and A2 and B1 dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and R1 filed their written arguments. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased from opposite party No.1 a Canon CLC 700 photocopy machine with printer and paid Rs.45,000/- on 20-4-2006 vide Ex.A1. He submits that he had purchased this machine to eke out his livelihood and from 27-4-2006 itself the paper was getting jammed and he complained on 23-5-2006, 2-6-2006, 16-6-2006, 21-6-2006 and 27-6-2006 and the opposite party No.1 attendants attended to it some times but still the defects were not rectified. Till date the printer has also not been installed inspite of getting issued letters there was no response from the opposite party No.1. The printer was to be installed by opposite party no.1 after 15 days but it was brought to the complainant’s office only at the end of June 2006 and was taken back again on 11-9-2006 for checking but never brought back.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant on 17-8-2006 met opposite party No.1 and requested him to take the machine back. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that he also spent Rs.8,000/- for the toner and since the machine did not work properly from day one, the toner remained unused. Opposite party No.1 also promised that he would give three months free service to keep it running smoothly but never did so. It is pertinent to note that the complainant throughout his written arguments has denied that he was aware that the machine was a second hand machine and that he had purchased the machine in good faith. We observe that Ex.A1 is silent about the machine being a second hand machine. Hence the contention of the respondent/opposite party No.1 that the machine is a second hand machine and was told to the complainant that he should take it on “As is where is basis” is unsustainable. Ex.A2 is dated 21-8-2006 and is a letter addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1 giving a detailed complaint and seeking installation of the printer. The details of service effected to the said machine from April, 6th till 21-8-2006 has been given by the complainant date wise as an enclosure to Ex.A2. This has been sent by courier and several letters are sent by the complainant on 27-9-2006, 27-12-2006 and 02-8-2007 respectively.
It is the respondent/opposite party no.1’s case that he imports the machines on “as is where is basis” and that all the defects were rectified by his personnel and that the toner is purchased by the complainant from the open market and it is not manufactured by him and contends that only because the complainant was not getting proper orders, he could not run the machine and that the complainant has still to pay him a balance of Rs.5,000/-. It is only on 02-8-2006 vide Ex.B1, that opposite party No.1 has replied to the complainant that the Canon CLC 700 colour copier is a used machine and that they are providing service on ‘charge’ basis. If that is the defense of opposite party No.1, it ought to have been specifically stated in the invoice i.e. Ex.A1 which is silent about the machine being an used machine. We also observe from the record that opposite party No.1 did not reply to any of the correspondence. His letter Ex.B1 does not refer to any of the earlier letters of the complainant but simply states that it is referring to the telephonic talk and reply to letter but does not specifically say whether he is responding to the correspondence of the complainant. The complainant did not establish that opposite party No2. is the manufacturer of the said machine, however, Ex.A1 evidences that the machine was purchased from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has also admitted that the complainant paid him an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the said machine and has never denied either in his counter or written arguments about receipt of the letters from the appellant/complainant. There is also no denial from opposite party No.1 with respect to the details of defects pointed out by the complaints as an annexure to Ex.A2. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, we conclude that there is deficiency in service on behalf of respondent/opposite party No.1 in selling a machine to the complainant and not informing that it is a second hand machine and which is not evidenced in the invoice, Ex.A1 and also in not rectifying the defects of the machine, we are of the view that opposite party No.1 should take back the defective machine and refund Rs.20,000/- since the machine was with the complainant from the date of purchase till date. We also direct respondent/opposite party no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing opposite party No.1 to take back the defective machine and refund to the complainant Rs.20,000/- since the machine was with the complainant from the date of purchase till date. We also direct respondent/opposite party no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed without costs.
sd/-PRESIDENT.
sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.30-7-2010
