IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2009
Filed on 30.03.2009
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.141/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Kurian.C.E, 1. M/s.Infres Methodex Limited,
Kurians Digital Studio, Branch Office, 36/963,
Pichu Iyer Junction, Lillys Arcade, Spices Street,
Alappuzha Near Journalist Colony, Cochin-18
(By Adv.R.N.Biju)
2. M/s.Infres Methodex Limited,
Registered Office,
B-1/F-1 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44
(By Adv.N.Padmini)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.Kurian.C.E has filed this complainant before the Forum on 30.03.2009 against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service. The allegation of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased a copier machine Konica Minolta BIZHUB C-252 made on 26.06.2007 from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,70,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand and Four Hundred only). He was induced to opt for the product on the promise made by the opposite parties that a “CRISP” contract will be linked with the product i.e., the opposite parties will give a special offer of “1000 copies free and a low CRISP contract rate of Rs.5/- as per A4 and Rs.6/- as per A3”. While the other dealers of the same product are giving CRISP rate at the rate of Rs.6/- for per A4 and Rs.7/- for per A3. This offer is made by the opposite parties intentionally to mislead him from purchasing the same product from other dealers by offering a reduction of Rs.1/- per copy of A4 and A3 than others. This offer is mentioned in the ‘Proforma Estimate Order Form’. On execution of the order from the opposite parties agreed that to sign a proper CRISP contract, but later kept dithering on the subject on one pretext of the other. Later on when the machine toner had been run out, the opposite party again promised to him that the money spent on the new toner by him will be adjusted in the CRISP contract as and when it is signed between the two parties. The opposite parties service engineers used to collect the print reading that is shown in the printer every month. So he thought the opposite parties will enter into the CRISP contract as early as possible. But the opposite parties have not turned up. After one year from the date of purchase of the said machine, it was dead and not in a working condition. When initiated this, the opposite parties do not sent any engineers or mechanics to clear the defect. When contacted again the opposite parties had initiated that thy will come for the service of the said machine only if he signed in another ‘AMC’ contract with the opposite parties. After the execution of the said contract, with the opposite parties by him, the opposite parties sent the engineers to rectify the defects. The set became defect again. The service engineers, who visited at that time are not able to rectify the defective for two months. After two months the opposite parties took the PCB of the said machine and send it to Delhi. After another one month, opposite parties initimated him that the PCB need not be replaced because it is damaged and its cost a sum of Rs.21,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Thousand only) and further intimated him that four imaging units of the failed machine are also 60% damaged and its costs almost Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Fourty Five Thousand only). Now the machine is not working due to the manufacturing defect. Actually the opposite parties had cheated him by way of supplying defective set and also by giving an offer of a rate under CRISP. Opposite parties have deliberately mislead him regarding the terms and condition of the said set. Opposite parties committed breach of contract and breach of trust by rearranging in the promise to supply spare parts. Since, there was no positive steps from the opposite parties, he has filed this complaint seeking relief.
1. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. Even though they have filed vakalth, they have not filed any version and not represented before the Forum. They are absent before the Forum in the proceedings. Forum allowed the complainant to file proof affidavit and documents.
2. The complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence. Ext.A1 to A5 marked. Ext.A1 is the Retail Invoice of the first opposite party issued to the complainant at the time of purchase of the machine. The invoice shown that a sum of Rs.2,70,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand and Four Hundred only) was the total price of the set. The invoice was signed by the Manager of the first opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Advocate’s notice dated, 11.11.2008 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties stating the whole history of the matter and for relief. Ext.A3 are the postal receipts. Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement card. Ext.A5 is the proforma estimate order form of the said set issued by the first opposite party showing the special offer CRISP rate and other details etc.
3. We have carefully examined the whole matters of this case and perused by documents produced by the complainant in evidence. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased the copier machine for a sum of Rs.2,70,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand and Four Hundred only) from the first opposite party. Since the machine was dead and not working completely, the complainant contacted the first opposite party to rectify the defects. The service engineer of the opposite parties had inspected the set several times and they could not rectify the defects completely. The service engineer had informed the complainant that PCB need to be replaced and that the imaging units of the machine are also 60% damaged and those cost Rs.45000/- (Rupees Fourty Five Thousand only). It shows that the set has manufacturing defects. For this, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for him. Since the opposite parties are entrusted the defective set having manufacturing defect to the complainant, this will amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The entire action on the side of the opposite parties shows that there is culpable negligence and cheating. So the opposite parties are fully answerable to the complainant for the violation of agreement and deliberate mislead of the complainant at the time of purchase of the said set. In this matter, it is to be noticed that the opposite parties have not taken any sincere effort to rectify the defects of the set. Instead of taking proper steps to cure the defects, they have retained the set is their custody and demanded, exorbitant amount from the complainant for curing the major defects of the set. This shows that, the set has full manufacturing defects and the opposite parties have not disclosed the matter to the complainant. The whole action of the opposite parties shows their unfair procedure taken in connection with the purchase of the set by the complainant. The attitude of the opposite parties shows the lack of bonafides and their actions are highly illegal and unauthorized. In this respect we are of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine and the complaint is to be allowed, since, there is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite parties, so the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
4. In the result we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the price of the set ie., Rs.2,70,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand and Four Hundred only) to the complainant or replace it with a new machine Konica Minolta BIZHUB C-252 having the same price and same specification of the earlier set without any defects, including a CRISP contract with a rate of Rs.5/- for per A4 and Rs.6/- for per A3, together with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony pain, sufferings physical strain, inconvenience capital loss and profit loss to the non-running of business caused by the damaged and non working of the said set due to the unfair trade practice, grossest deficiency in services culpable negligence of the opposite parties by way of supplying the set having manufacturing defects and refusal to rectify the defects permanently and return it in time to the complainant. we further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant as costs of this proceedings and direct the opposite parties to comply this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Retail Invoice No.122, dated, 23.06.2007
Ext. A2 - Lawyers Notice
Ext. A3 - Postal receipts
Ext. A4 - Acknowledgment cards
Ext. A5 - Proforma estimate dated, 18.06.2007
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
