2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The opposite party is only a dealer and not the manufacturer. The opposite party deals with the Cannon products, the complainant would have impleaded the manufacturer, that has not been done. The complainant has purchased the material for his business purpose hence he is not a consumer. The purchase of the Xerox machine, its warranty, its defects are all admitted. There is no manufacturing defects. The Tool Free Number is not of the opposite party but it is of the manufacturer who has sent the mechanic. It is because of cockroaches the damage has occurred for which there is no warranty.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party is the dealer of the Canon products. The complainant approached the opposite party on 06.07.2011 with respect to purchase of Canon Xerox Machine. The opposite party has given the quotation for Rs.9,500/-. The said quotation reads thus:-
Nowhere in this invoice the opposite party has given the details of the manufacturer to the complainant. In the sense, Who is the manufacturer? Where he is situated? What are his Service Centers in case of any defects, whom has to be approached? Nothing has been stated. Nowhere in its version or in the affidavit the opposite party has given these details. Hence it means the warranty of one year is the warranty of one year given by the manufacturer through the opposite party and the opposite party is bound by the warranty even if it is given by the manufacturer since as an agent and dealer he has sold the machine to the complainant.
7. Further it is an undisputed fact that the complainant paid the amount and took the delivery of the Canon Xerox Machine on that day on 06.07.2011, the machine worked up to 26.07.2011. It is also admitted fact that on 26.07.2011 the machined stopped functioning. This defect was brought to the notice of the opposite party. The complainant has clearly stated that on 27.07.2011, 29.07.2011, 18.08.2011 he had lodged the complaints bearing Nos.373475, 374608, 383122 respectively. This is not denied by the opposite party. Once the complainant has lodged the complaint it is for opposite party to get the machine to any service center and got it repaired. Anyway one Arun a technical personnel has come and seen the machine and has given a report in the matter to the opposite party because the opposite party intimated him and the copy sent to the complainant which reads thus:-
This speaks for itself. That means due to cockroaches entering inside the machine, due to electrical shortage; the engine controller PCB Assy amounting to Rs.5,099 + tax and laser Scanner unit amounting to Rs.4,307+ tax has to be replaced. This has to be replaced repaired free of costs as there is a warranty of one year. Demanding money for repairing is nothing but an unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service.
8. In this case it is further contended that the complainant as stated in the complaint that he is earning Rs.200/- by engaging the labourers from the machine means it is a commercial purpose. This is an untenable contention. The complainant is a petty provision store, instead of engaging a clerk he used a machine for earning his livelihood it is not for business alone being done for earning from the machine. Hence the said contention is an untenable one.
9. The opposite party has contended the manufacturer should have been a party to the proceedings. The opposite party has not given the detailed address of the manufacturer or detailed description of the manufacturer. Even otherwise because of warranty the opposite party has to get it repaired or replaced and he can get the things done through manufacturer for which this order will not come in that way. The manufacturer need not be a necessary party the opposite party is representing the manufacturer also since he is the agent of the manufacturer. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The complainant shall deliver the Canon Xerox Machine (Canon Printer 4412 SL No. HDH 21536) to the opposite party within one week from today and the opposite party shall receive it under acknowledgment.
3. The opposite party is directed to repair the Canon Xerox Machine (Canon Printer 4412 SL No. HDH 21536) sold to the complainant under Invoice No.422 (2011-12), dated: 06.07.2011, as per the warranty free of costs and deliver to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. If for any reason the opposite party fails to repair or re-deliver the Canon Xerox Machine to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order it shall pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.9,500/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.07.2011 until payment within 60 days from today.
5. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
6. The parties are directed to comply the order as ordered above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
7. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
8. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
