Delhi

New Delhi

CC/52/2012

Sunil Mendiratta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. International Elect.& Comm. Systems Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/52/12                                                                                                                                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

I T L LABS PVT. LTD.

(THROUGH) SUNIL MEHENDIRATTA,

OFFICE AT: B-283-284, MANGOL PURI,

NDL. AREA, PHASE-1DELHI-110083

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

A-2, C-BLOCK,

COMMUNITY CENTRE,

NARAINA VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-028

       

       

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: RTU GARODIA

 

The complaint pertains to defect in photocopy machine.

 The short facts are that OPs entered an agreement to sell with complainant for Konica Minolita Bizel 211 photo copy machine for an amount of Rs.1,59,500/-. Complainant paid 1,01,000/- and photo copy machine was delivered on 30.6.11.  However, same parts were missing which were not supplied despite several requests.  Subsequently complainant by email dated 29.8.2011 cancelled the order, sought refund and purchased a new machine.

OP in its reply admits to receipt of Rs.1,01,000/- towards sale of photocopy machine.  OP subsequently contends that it informed the complainant about delivery of remaining part of machine only after receiving the balance amount.

We have summarily considered the pleadings, documents and correspondence annexed.  There was an order by Districts Forum dated 22.12.11 on maintainability as it was filed by an employee of the company.  Complainant has placed a board resolution dated 3.1.2012 wherein the complainant has been authorized to file the complainant.  The agreement for photocopy machine and payment of Rs.1,01,000/- is admitted by both the parties. Scrutiny of email dated 29.8.2011 reveals that OP was still trying to get remaining materials from Konica Minolita Company and had also apologized for inconvenience.  Subsequently complainant in another email had intimated them of their decision to purchase a new machine along with request of refund.

Photocopy machine is an essential component in smooth day-to-day working of a regular office.

 OP by not fulfilling the condition specified in agreement and keeping the part paid amount had severely inconvenienced and disrupted the functioning of complainant’s office amounting to negligence and unfair trade practices.

  We, direct OP to refund Rs.1,01,000/- with 9% interest from date of payment till realization. .  We also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment, and unfair trade practices  inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action will be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 17.07.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER