Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/12/2016

M/s.J.Thiyagarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Unitech Imaging System Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.Chandra Sekharan

01 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   08.07.2013

                                                                        Date of Order :   01.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (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

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.12/2016

WEDNESDAY THIS  1^ST  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

J. Thiyagarajan,

S/o. Mr. K.Jambulingam,

28, Station Road, Korattur,

Chennai 600 080.                                      .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

Unitech Imaging Systems Limited,

Old No.138, New NO.2, 1^st Floor,

Chamber Road, Nandanam,

Chennai 600 035.                                      .. Opposite party

 

Counsel for Complainant        :   M/s. G.Thangavel & others.       

Counsel for opposite parties   :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the new Xerox machine or to refund the cost of the Xerox machine of Rs.73,795/- and also to paysum of Rs.20,000/- as loss of earning per month and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 

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

         The complainant submit that he has purchased a Canon A3 Digital Copier IR 3530  Xerox machine for his business in the name of internet Cafe, DTP Project Typing, Scanning Xerox etc. for his livelihood on 3.5.2010.   At the time of purchase the complainant paid the entire cost of Rs.67,795/- plus Rs.6000/- towards stabilizer totaling Rs.73,975/- through a Hypothecation agreement with Sriram City Union Finance Limited and the complainant is paying a sum of Rs.5500/- towards monthly installments.  Further the complainant state that the opposite party had offered warranty for above said machine for 3 months or 30 thousand copies.  But within the period of 40 days of purchase and installation of the said machine mal functioned.  Further the complainant state that after due information regarding the mal function of the machine due to filament problem the opposite party rectified the defects twice.   Thereafter the complainant operated the machine and took 12000 copies within the period of 40 days.   Thereafter once again the filament mal functioned.  Even after several demands and request the opposite party has not turned up to rectify the defects.     As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite party  did not appear before this forum and therefore the opposite party was  set exparte.  

3.     Though the  opposite party  remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

4.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit  filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A8  are marked. 

5. The Points for consideration is : -

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.73,795/- being the cost of the Xerox machine as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled toa sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning per month and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

 

 

6. :

 

          The complainant pleaded inthe complaint and contended that he has purchased a Canon A3 Digital Copier IR 3530  Xerox machine for his business in the name of internet Cafe, DTP Project Typing, Scanning Xerox etc. for his livelihood on 3.5.2010.   At the time of purchase the complainant paid the entire cost of Rs.67,795/- plus Rs.6000/- towards stabilizer totaling Rs.73,975/- through Hypothecation agreement with Sriram City Union Finance Limited and the complainant is paying a sum of Rs.5500/- towards monthly installments. But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove such amount of Rs.73,795/- incurred for the purchase of Xerox machine.   On the other hand the complainant produced Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.23,425/- and Ex.A2 for a sum of Rs.5404/- totaling Rs.28,829/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that  the opposite party had offered warranty for the above said machine for 3 months or 30 thousand copies.  But within the period of 40 days of purchase and installation of the said machine mal functioned proves that this case is filed for defect in machine out of warranty period.  Further the contention of the complainant is that after due information regarding the mal function of the machine due to filament problem the opposite party rectified the defects twice.   Thereafter the complainant operated the machine and took 12000 copies within the period of 40 days.   Thereafter once again the filament mal functioned.  Even after several demands and request the opposite party has not turned up to rectify the defects.    Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case for replacement of machine or refund the cost price of the machine Rs.73,795/- etc.  But it is apparently seen from the records that within the warranty period all the defects were rectified then and there as per Ex.A6.  After the warranty period whether the opposite party is duty bound to rectify the defects has not been pleaded and proved by the complainant.   In this case the complainant has not paid any amount towards service charges or repair charges after taking 12000 copies and after the period of 40 days.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.No cost.  

 

           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 1^st day  of  November 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 3.5.2010    - Copy of Xerox machine receipt issued by the opp. party.

Ex.A2- 21.9.2010  - Copy of receipt of machine hypothecation.

Ex.A3- 4.5.2010    - Copy of warranty certificate issued by the opp. party.

Ex.A4- 16.7.2010  - Copy of invoice of the opp. party.

Ex.A5- 19.10.2010         - Copy of service report.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of service report.

Ex.A7- 24.9.2010  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A8-         -       - Copy of no due certificate issued by the Sriram City union

                               Bank.

Opposite parties’ side document: -     ..Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.