Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

494/2009

R.Padmanabhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Digital Fine System , - Opp.Party(s)

R.Vijayan

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 08.06.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 12.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

CC. NO.494/2009

FRIDAY THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

R. Padmanabhan,

Proprietor R.P.Telecom,

New No.107, Old No.52,

Swamy Naicker Street,

Chintadaripet,

Chennai 600 002.                                            .. Complainant.

 

                                                  ..Vs..

1.  M/s. Digital Fine Systems,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Violin House, No.52, 1^st Floor,

2^nd Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai 600 082.

 

2. The HCL Infosystem Limited,

2^nd floor 67, Greams Road,

Mrugesa Naicker Office Complex,

Greams Road,

Chennai 600 006.                                             .. Opposite parties. 

 

 

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. R.Vijayan & other  

Counsel for opposite parties           :   M/s. Srinath Sridevan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards cost of the Xerox machine with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he purchased a Xerox machine model Toshiba-e-Studio 166 (A3 copier cum printer) from the 1^st opposite party on 6.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-  with one year warranty.   Further the complainant   state that after the purchase while using the Xerox machine  there was noise in the machine and the prints are not clear.   Hence the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party’s repairer HCL Info systems Ltd who is the 2^nd opposite party in this case.   The 2^nd opposite party service person attended the machine on 9.3.2009 stating that if the scanner unit belt and machine checked.  Even after the said repair the Xerox machine continued its trouble and defects.  The opposite party representative attended the machine on 16.3.2009 & 26.3.2009.  Since the defects were continued.  The complainant sent letter  dated 25.4.2009 to the opposite party to replace the machine.  Since the opposite party has not responded properly.  Complainant filed this complaint.  As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that the 1^st opposite party carrying his business  in the name of  Digital Fine systems.   This company has been appointed as the “Channel Partner” by an agreement dated 12.8.2008 wherein the 2^nd opposite party has appointed us to promote and sell their products.  Further the opposite parties state that  on 9.3.2009 within the period of warranty the complainant  has given a complaint with regard to fault in the Xerox machine stating that there are noise and the print is not clear.  Immediately the 2^nd opposite party service person attended and the complainant  also given voucher for the machine working satisfactorily.  Again  the complainant made the same complaint which has been attended on 26.3.2009.  Rectified and machine working satisfactorily was signed by the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.6 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

4. The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards cost of the Xerox machine or to replace the Xerox machine as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as loss of earning and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

5.      POINTS 1 & 2:

           The complainant filed written arguments.   The opposite parties has not come forward to file either written arguments or advanced oral arguments.     Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.    Admittedly the complainant purchased a Xerox machine model Toshiba-e-Studio 166 (A3 copier cum printer) from the 1^st opposite party on 6.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-  with one year warranty under invoice and delivery challan Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.  Further the complainant  contended that after the purchase while using the Xerox machine  there was a noise in the machine and the prints are not clear.   Hence the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party’s repairer HCL Info systems Ltd who is the 2^nd opposite party in this case.   The 2^nd opposite party service person attended the machine on 9.3.2009 stating that the scanner unit belt and machine checked as per Ex.A3.  Even after the said repair the Xerox machine continued its trouble and defects.  The opposite party representative attended the machine on 16.3.2009 & 26.3.2009 as per Ex.A4.  Since the defects were continued.  The complainant sent letter Ex.A5 dated 25.4.2009 to the opposite party to replace the machine.  Since the opposite party has not responded properly.   The complainant issued legal notice Ex.A6 on 14.5.2009 and filed this case claiming compensation or replacement of the machine for deficiency in service.  

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the 1^st opposite party carrying his business   in the name of  Digital Fine systems.   This company has been appointed as the “Channel Partner” by an agreement dated 12.8.2008 wherein the 2^nd opposite party has appointed to promote and sell their products.   Admittedly the complainant purchased a Xerox machine of model Toshiba e studio 166 (A3 copier cum printer) from the 1^st opposite party on 6.10.2008 under invoice No.172 for commercial purpose.   Hence this complaint is not maintainable.   But on a careful perusal of the records, the complainant using the said Xerox machine for his livelihood.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 9.3.2009 within the period of warranty the complainant  has given a complaint with regard to fault in the Xerox machine stating that there are noise and the print is not clear. Immediately the 2^nd opposite party service person attended the complaint who has also given voucher admitting that  the machine working satisfactorily as per Ex.A8.   Thereafter repeatedly the 2^nd opposite party service person attended the machine and duly serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant.  When the  service man attended for the service for 3^rd time the complainant  had denied the access and caused notice dated 14.5.2009.  Ex.B8 is the customer service slip.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no manufacturing defect in the machine.   The alleged complaint in the machine are abusing the opposite parties and is motivated and contrary to the user instruction; it can be seen from the service slip also.   But the opposite party has not denied the unwarranted noise in the machine and the defects in the print.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the Xerox machine within the premises of the complainant  and is under use and occupation.   The complainant has not produced any record to prove that he is not using the Xerox machine.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable to repair the complaint mentioned Xerox machine in such manner within 30 days failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay cost of the Xerox machine of Rs.60,000/- as compensation  with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable to repair the complaint mentioned Xerox machine in such manner within 30 days failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay cost of the Xerox machine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) as compensation  with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.  

          Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of January 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 30.9.2008 - Copy of Performa Invoice.

Ex.A2- 6.10.2008 - Copy of Invoice cum Delivery challan.

Ex.A3- 9.3.2009  - Copy of customer cell cum service slip.

Ex.A4- 26.3.2009 - Copy of customer cell cum service slip.

Ex.A5- 24.4.2009 - Copy of letter sent by complainant.

Ex.A6- 14.5.2009 - Copy of legal notice.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1-  12.8.2008 - Copy of Channel Partner Agreement.

Ex.B2- 14.5.2009 - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.B3 - 24.4.2009          - Copy of letter from complainant.

Ex.B4-                - Copy of installation note.

Ex.B5-         -        - Copy of warranty.

Ex.B6- 6.10.2008  - Copy of bill.

Ex.B7-                - Copy of bank statement.

Ex.B8- 8.8.2009    - Copy of customer care service slip.

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.