IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 29^th   day of  November, 2010

Filed on 06/02/2006

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.36/2006

 between

Complainant:-                                                                         Opposite Parties:-

Smt.P.L. Jayasree                                                         1.         Caravan Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

Sree Bhavanam                                                                        21, Viswesarapuram Street

Near Village Office Junction                                                       Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004

Chingoli P.O., Haripad                                                            

Alappuzha                                                                    2.         The Xerox India Ltd.

(By Adv. B. Somanadha Kurup                                                26, Kathedral Road

                                                                                                Chennai – 600 086

                                                                                                (By Adv. A. Kumar)

                                                                                    3.         Xerox  Modi Corporation Ltd.

                                                                                                109, Shivalik Apartments

                                                                                                Sector – 35, Noida District

                                                                                                Gautham Budh Nagar

                                                                                                Uttar Pradesh – 201 307

                                                                                    4.         Xerox Modi Corporation Ltd.

                                                                                                Shahzadnagar, Dist. Rampur –

                                                                                                244 901, Uttar Pradesh

                                                                                    5.         Amb Services, 17/425

                                                                                                Royal Building, College Road

                                                                                                Baker Junction, Kottayam

                                                                                                Pin – 686 001

O R D E R

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

            Smt. Jayasree has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties.  The allegations are as follows:-  She had purchased Model WC 415 Digital Table Top (Printer cum copier) serial No.3501705496, from the 1^st opposite party, for a sum of Rs.1  lakh on 31.8.2004 and same was installed by the 2^nd opposite party on 8.9.2004.  She had purchased the same for her livelihood.  In order to the defects of the set, and for its rectification, she had reported the matter of defects to the 5^th  opposite party.  A technician came and inspected the set on 22.7.2005 and replaced a  cartridge after collecting a sum of Rs.8050/- from her.  But the technician could not rectify the  defect completely.  Again another technician visited the site and reported that there were some internal problems and replaced  cartridge was taken back by him.  Since then the set was lying idle.  On 16.12.2005  ENGR No. NA 24, put a remark – black lines Ross failed.  It was learnt  from the said technician that an outmoded machine was supplied to her.  The spare parts are also not available.   The set was outmoded one and defective.  She could not get any relief from the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.    

            2.  Notices were issued to the parties.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version.  5^th  opposite party entered appearance.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 were deleted from the party array.    

            3.  In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that they are the sales promotion agent of  M/s.Xerox India Ltd. and service will be from the authorized service provider of Xerox India Ltd., and not from them.  The machine was installed by the 2^nd opposite party on the satisfaction of the complainant.  

            4.  In the version of the 2^nd  opposite party, it is stated that they are the company and is engaged in the manufacturer and marketing of copier machine,  faxes, printers and other parts related to products.  Complainant had purchased the machine for the commercial purpose and that the complaint is not maintainable for that ground.   It is stated that the machine was installed on 8.9.2004 and that the warranty was for 12 months which expired on  8.9.2005.  The warranty does not cover consumables like Drum, Cartridge, since Drum Cartridge is a consumable, life depends upon the number of copies taken and need to be replaced after regular intervals, and parts are available in the market.  It is stated that they are attending the service complaint and defective parts if any will be repaired or replaced free of costs till the expiry of  warranty and they have rectified the defects of the said set of the complainant on 30.8.2005.  They had attended all the calls of the complainant for rectification.  It is stated that when the machine continued to be out of warranty, the complainant had reported another complaint on 16.12.2005.  But  they were sent Service Engineer and found that the part called ‘Ross assy’  has failed.  They had given estimate for chargeable repair to her.  But complainant was demanded free of cost repair again.  The machine supplied was not defective or outmoded.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and there is no unfair trade practice.  

            5.  Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-

            1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?

            2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief prayed for?

            3)  Compensation and costs.

6.                  Issues 1 to 3:-  Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of her case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A9 marked – and  examined her and cross examined by the 5^th opposite party and examined the witness of the complainant and cross examined him by the 5^th opposite party.  Ext.A1 is the proforma invoice dt. 1.7.2004 issued to the complainant in connection with the purchase of the said machine.  The price of the set shown therein was Rs.1,05,000/-.  It shows the details of the specification of the machine and other conditions.  Ext.A2 is the proforma invoice dt. 21.7.2004 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  It shows the price of the set ie. Rs.1 lakh and other details of the set.  Ext.A3 is the service call note dt. 30.8.2005 issued to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party and Ext.A4 is the service call note issued to the complainant.  Ext.A5 is the letter dt. 21.8.2004 issued to the first opposite party  by the Service Co-operative Bank, Karthikappally in connection with the forwarding of the DD for a sum of Rs.1  lakh towards the price of the said  set.  Ext.A6 is the letter by the complainant to the first opposite party regarding the defects of the machine and her request to take back the set/release the price of the set.  Ext.A7 is the defective picture of the said set. 
Ext. A8 and A9 are the documents of the set regarding its function.    

7.  2^nd opposite party had filed the counter affidavit in respect of the matter involved in the case and examined the 5^th opposite party and cross examined him by the complainant, and they have produced one document in evidence – Ext.B1 – marked – Ext.B1 is the service call note issued by the opposite party to the complainant in connection with the details of the set and the details of the defects.   

            8.  We have carefully examined the whole matter involved in this matter and verified the documents produced by both parties in evidence, and perused the depositions of the complainant and the 5^th opposite party. 

9.  On verification, it can be seen that the complainant had purchased the above said set for a sum of Rs.1  lakh from the first opposite party and it was installed by the 2^nd opposite party at the site of the complainant.  5^th opposite party was the authorized the Service Centre and the set was required for earning for the livelihood of the complainant.  It is alleged that the set become defective within one year.  The Engineer had visited the site and conducted repair and replaced the Drum Cartridge.  But the site engineer could not rectify the defects permanently.  The  replaced cartridge was taken back and  since then the set was lying idle.  It is also noted that the black line Ross was also failed.  It is further alleged that the spare parts of this type of machine was not available.  On an overall reading of the entire matter of this case, it is to be noted that the set has manufacturing  defects.   The set was defective in several respects and the complainant could not use the said set in a proper way.  It is further noticed that the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defects in a permanent way or to release the price of the set.  But the opposite parties are shown any interest to rectify the defects of the set on the satisfaction of the complainant.  The contentions raised by the first and 5^th opposite parties  cannot  be accepted, since it lacks any bonafides.  On a verification of the documents, produced by both parties, we are of the view that the opposite parties are acted in most irreparable way to rectify the defects of the set.  It is to be noted that the opposite parties are fully aware of the defects of the set.  But they are acted in a negligent way to handle this case.  Since the contentions of the first and 5^th opposite parties raised through the version have no merit,   it cannot be accepted  as a valid ground to rectify the defects/release the amount of the set, and the opposite parties cannot escape from the liability.  The opposite parties acted in an illegal and arbitrary way to cure the defect of the set or replacement of the said set by a new one.   On a verification and perusal of the documents and explanation of the said opposite parties, we are of the further view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for.    The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this matter.   Hence complaint is allowed as prayed for.  All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.  

            In the result, for the ends  of justice, we hereby direct the first, second and 5^th opposite parties to rectify the defect of the set mentioned above,  and to get the said Machine in a working condition by replacement of any new parts if required onfailure, to replace the said machine with a new one, and further ordered that the said opposite parties will not charge any fee for the rectification and further ordered that the said opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant for her mental agony, inconvenience, pain, sufferings, loss and harassment of the said opposite parties   by way of purposeful refusal to rectify the defects of the machine in time and collected exorbitant amount from the complainant due to the grossest deficiency in service, negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties.   We further ordered that the opposite parties shall pay sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) also to the complainant as costs  of this proceedings and ordered that the opposite parties shall comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of  this order.

            Complaint allowed.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2010.

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                -                       P.L. Jayasree (Witness)

PW2                -                       Bhaskaran (Witness)

PW3                -                       Sadasivan Pillai (Witness)

Ext.A1             -                       Proforma invoice dt. 1.7.2004 issued to the complainant

Ext.A2             -                       Proforma invoice dt. 21.7.2004

Ext.A3             -                       Service call note dt. 30.8.2005

Ext.A4             -                       Service call note issued to the complainant

Ext.A5             -                       Letter dt. 21.8.2004

Ext.A6             -                       Letter by the complainant to the first opposite party

Ext.A7             -                       Defective picture of the set

Ext.A8 & A9    -                       Document of the set regarding the function of the set

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                -                       A.M. Balakrishnan (Witness)

Ext.B1              -                       Service call note issued to the complainant by the opposite

                                                Parties

   // True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-            

Compared by:-