IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2012.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.18/2011 (Filed on 12.01.2011)

Between:

Mrs. Joyes,

M/s. Phoenix Systems,

KSRTC Bus Stand Road,

Pathanamthitta. 

(By Adv. Sanju Sekhar)                                                         …..    Complainant

And:

1.     Rojan V. K.,

Chiramel Vadakkan Veedu,

Near St. Joseph Church,

North Chalakudy,

Thrissur.

2.     Aneesh,

Adteck Computer Consultancy,

Panchavady Complex,

Paramoottilpadi,

Aranmula.

(By Adv. Joseph. K for O.P’s 1 & 2)                                     …..    Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):

                   Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:  Complainant has been running an institution named ‘Phoenix Systems’ having the work of photocopying and STD booth etc.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorized agent of Canon photocopier and 2^nd opposite party is the agent of the 1^st opposite party at Pathanamthitta.

                   3. 2^nd opposite party approached the complainant and introduced himself as the agent of 1^st opposite party and described the features of canon colour photocopying machine and persuaded to purchase the same.  Thereafter opposite parties meet the complainant and elucidated the working of the said machine.  Attracting their words complainant purchased a photocopier by remitting ` 10,900 in 1^st opposite party’s account No.67049072697 in SBT as per their instruction.  After remitting the amount, 2^nd opposite party brought the machine to the complainant.  They assured that 750 copies would be taken from the 1^st load cartridges.  When the machine has started working the complainant received only 80 copies instead of the promised 750 copies.  This was informed to them.  But they evaded the complainant with one reason or other.

                   4. The said act of opposite parties caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  So the complainant sent a lawyers notice to 1^st opposite party.  Though he accepted the notice he had not resolved the problem.  Hence this complaint for getting the price of the machine with 8% interest and a compensation of ` 35,000 and cost.

                   5. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions. 

                   6.  The contentions in the version of the 1^st opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  According to them, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.  They alleged that complainant is attempting to perpetrate fraud on this Forum.  The complainant has not purchased any printer or any other article from the 1^st opposite party.  The invoice dated 28.06.2010 produced by the complainant is an invoice for ` 2,115 issued to one Sathyan of Pathanamthitta.  The printer mentioned in the said invoice was never sold to the complainant.  The printer mentioned in the complaint is a different model having different price from the one mentioned in the said invoice.

                   7. The 1^st opposite party is acquainted with one Jayesh in Chalakudy is a dealer in canon printers.  The complainant is understood to have purchased a printer from the said Jayesh.  At the request of the said Jayesh, the 1^st opposite party had furnished his bank account to facilitate a transfer of ` 10,900 from one of his customers.  A sum of ` 10,500 credited to the account of the 1^st opposite party was paid over to the said Jayesh.  Apart from the above, the 1^st opposite party has no involvement with the disputed transaction.  The 1^st opposite party has not supplied any printers or any other articles to the complainant. 

                   8. The 1^st opposite party has no acquaintance with the component.  As such the 1^st opposite party is unable to comment on the complainant’s identity or vacation.  The allegation that 2^nd opposite party is an agent of the 1^st opposite party of Pathanamthitta is patently wrong.  The Adtech Computer Consultancy mentioned in the complaint is not an agent of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is not engaged in the business of sale or supply of canon printers.  The 1^st opposite party has never met the complainant nor did he make any representation to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has neither solicited nor canvassed any purchase orders from the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has never visited the complainant either by himself or in the company of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party believes that the complainant purchased a printer from the said Jayesh.  The complainant be directed to produce the purchase bill of the said article so as to determine the identity of the supplier.  According to 1^st opposite party, the credit of ` 10,900 to his bank account was paid over the said Jayesh.

                   9. The 1^st opposite party has neither sold nor supplied any photocopier or any other article to the complainant.  The complainant is a total stranger to the 1^st opposite party.  There was no occasion whatsoever for the 1^st opposite party to make any representations regarding the said photocopier or of such other articles.  The complainant never called upon the 1^st opposite party with any complaint with the functioning of the said photocopier.  There was no occasion for the 1^st opposite party to evade from the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has no liability what so ever the complainant.  Therefore 1^st opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   10. Contentions in the version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  According to them, complainant has not purchased any printer or any other article from the 2^nd opposite party or from Adtech Computer Consultancy of which the 2^nd opposite party is a technician.  The invoice dated 28.06.2010 produced by the complainant is an invoice for ` 2,115 issued to one Sathyan at Pathanamthitta.  The printer mentioned in the complaint is never sold to the complainant.  The said printer is a different model having different price from the one mentioned in the invoice.  It is therefore clear that the attempt of the complainant is to commit fraud on this Forum.

                   11. The 2^nd opposite party has no acquaintance with the complainant.  The allegation that 2^nd opposite party is an agent of 1^st opposite party at Pathanamthitta is patently wrong.  The 2^nd opposite party is a technician of Adtech Computer Consultancy at Aranmula.  The said computer consultancy is not an agent of the 1^st opposite party either.  The 2^nd opposite party has never met the complainant nor did he make any representation that he was agent of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has neither solicited nor canvassed any purchase orders from the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party has never visited the complainant either by himself or in the company of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is not aware whether the complainant purchased any photocopier for ` 10,900 or from she purchased the photocopier.

                   12. The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the alleged payment of ` 10,900 by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party or of the manner in which the said amounts were allegedly paid.  The 2^nd opposite party has neither sold nor supplied any photocopier or any other article to the complainant.  No representations were ever made by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant either.  The complainant is a total stranger to the 2^nd opposite party.  There was no occasion whatsoever for the 2^nd opposite party to make any representations regarding the said photocopier or of such other articles.  The complainant never called upon the 2^nd opposite party with any complaint with the functioning of the said photocopier either.  There was no occasion for the 2^nd opposite party to evade from the complainant. 

                   13. The 2^nd opposite party has neither sold nor supplied any photocopier or any other article to the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has no liability whatsoever to the complainant.  Hence they also canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   14. From the above pleadings following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

          15. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1.  After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.

          16. Point Nos. 1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the pay in slip for ` 10,900 issued by SBT, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.A2 is the copy of advocate notice issued to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the postal receipt of Ext.A2.  Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A2.  Ext.A5 is the reply notice to Ext.A2.  Ext.A6 is the canon photocopier machines manual.  Ext.A7 is the cartridges invoice bill dated 16.08.2010 issued by Adtech Computer Consultancy, Aranmula. 

          17. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, both opposite parties filed separate proof affidavits.  2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and 1^st opposite party was examined as DW2.  A document produced from complainant’s side was marked as Ext.B1.  Ext.B1 is the invoice of Printer Canon IP 2770 issued by Adtech Computer Consultancy to Sathyan,  Pathanamthitta.

                   18. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  Complainant’s case is that, she purchased to canon photocopier machine from 1^st opposite party as persuaded by 2^nd opposite party who is the agent of 1^st opposite party.  The said machine was not working properly from the very beginning.  Complainant contacted the opposite parties, but they evaded from their liability.

                   19. 1^st opposite party’s contention is that complainant has not purchased any printer or any other article from then.  As per the request of one Jayesh, the 1^st opposite party had furnished the bank account to facilitate a transfer of ` 10,900 from one of his customers.  The credited amount was paid over to the said Jayesh.  According to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party, complainant may have purchased a printer from the said Jayesh.  Moreover 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is not the agent of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party’s contention is that, he is only a technician of Adtech Computer Consultancy and he is not aware of the alleged payment of ` 10,900.  2^nd opposite party has not sold any article to the complainant.  The printer mentioned in the complaint is given to one Sathyan at Pathanamthitta.  2^nd opposite party never met the complainant and he is not an agent of 1^st opposite party. 

                   20. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that complainant had remitted ` 10,900 to the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party’s account.  Evidence revealed that the said amount was accepted by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  It is not disputed that Ext.A6 is the manual of canon photocopier and Ext.A7 is the cartridge invoice bill of ` 2,800.

                   21. According to 1^st opposite party, the amount of ` 10,900 received from the complainant has paid over to Jayesh, who is the dealer of canon photocopier who is acquainted with him.  But he neither produced the details of account transaction nor to take step to examine the said Jayesh to substantiate the contention.  Moreover, the deposition of DW2, 1^st opposite party which is contrary to his version and chief affidavit is not believable, which is as follows:þ “Ptb-jnsâ taÂhn-emkw IrXy-ambn F\n¡-dn-bn-Ã…………...P-tb-jn\v Photostat machineþsâ tSmWÀ hnev]-\-bm-Wv.  I­p ]cn-N-bta DÅp“. 

                   22. 2^nd opposite party’s contention is that he had not sold any article to complainant.  According to him, Ext.B1 printer was given to one Sathyan at Pathanamthitta.  But he willfully suppressed the whereabouts of Ext.A7 in his version and proof affidavit.  But in cross-examination, opposite party II (DW1) disclosed and admitted that Ext.A7 had issued to complainant.  The said deposition of opposite party II (DW1) is as follows:- “Ext.A7 R§-fpsS kvYm]-\-¯n \n¶v \ÂIn-b-Xm-sW¶v tXm¶p-¶p.  hmZn-I-fpsS photocopier machineþ\v Bh-iyapÅ cartridge \ÂIn-b-Xnsâ _n BWv Ext.A7“.

              23.  From the above deposition, 2^nd opposite party’s statement in chief affidavit that “the complainant is never a consumer of mine” is also devoid of truth. 

                   24. From the overall facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, it is crystal clear that complainant purchased a canon photocopier from 1^st opposite party by paying ` 10,900 and 2^nd opposite party is the agent of 1^st opposite party.  But opposite parties came with unclean hands.  They made all the effort to escape from their liability by unfair, crook and crude ways.  If their contention is allowed, it is to be a travesty of justice. 

                   25. Apart from Ext.B1, opposite parties failed to adduce any materials either to disprove the complainant’s case or to prove their own case.  Accepting A1 price and selling low quality photocopier and not even resolved the complaint of the complainant is illegal, unfair, unscrupulous and against all cannons of consumer justice.  It is not only a clear deficiency of service but also an unfair trade practice.  Therefore, complaint is maintainable and allowable.

                   26. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby opposite parties are directed to return Ext.A1 amount with a compensation of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand only).  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 8% interest from this date till the realization of the whole amount.  Complainant is directed to return the photocopying machine to opposite parties on getting the ordered amount.                                           

                   Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of January, 2012.

                                                                                                         (Sd/-)

                                                                                                N. Premkumar,

                                                                                                      (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Joyes

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Pay slip for ` 10,900 issued by SBT, Pathanamthitta.   

A2     :  Photocopy of advocate notice dated 10.11.2010 issued by the 

             complainant to 1^st opposite party. 

A3     :  Postal receipt of Ext.A2. 

A4     :  Acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. 

A5     :  Reply notice dated 19.11.2010 issued by the opposite party to the 

             complainant. 

A6     :  Canon photocopier machines manual. 

A7     :  Cartridges invoice bill for ` 2,800 dated 16.08.2010 issued by

             2^nd opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :  Anishkumar. A

DW2 :   Rojan.V.K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Invoice dated 28.06.2010 for ` 2,115 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Mrs. Joyes, M/s. Phoenix Systems,  KSRTC Bus Stand Road, 

                       Pathanamthitta.      

(2)  Rojan V. K., Chiramel Vadakkan Veedu, Near St. Joseph- Church, North Chalakudy, Thrissur.

(3)  Aneesh, Adteck Computer Consultancy, Panchavady -Complex, Paramoottilpadi, Aranmula.

(4)  The Stock File.