Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/114/2013

Jamuna Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Mohamed Meera Labbai - Opp.Party(s)

R.Chellappa

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 17.12.2012

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 25.09.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.114/2013

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                                 

Miss. Jamuna Rani,

No.11/27, 9^th Street,

Trustpuram,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                        .. Complainant.

                                                                                            ..Versus..

 

1. S. Mohammed Meera Labbai,

Pro.: M/s. Xeroxtronic Computers,

New No.17, Old No.5, Araya Gowder Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.

 

2. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

SME City Credit Centre,

Ekkattuthangal Branch,

No.5, J.N. Road,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. S. Rajesh & another

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  : M/s. B.L. Lavanya

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party :  M/s. C.P.R. Kamaraj & another

 

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 prays to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss due to the purchase of defective Xerox machine and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, miscellaneous expenses with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that she is an educated women availed the opportunity offered by the Government under which financial assistance is extended to unemployed youth. The Government has envisaged a programme under the name of ‘Unemployed Youth Employment Generation Programme’ to make an honest career by earning income for their living.  On 20.12.2012, the complainant purchased a Xerox machine (Canon Colour Multifunction Device 3000 Series) from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- under invoice No.XC/11-12/142.  The 2^nd opposite party bank also sanctioned the loan for the due purchase of Xerox machine.  Immediately after disbursement of loan amount, the Xerox machine was delivered by the 1^st opposite party with high hopes of making the best use of Xerox machine.  But the complainant found that the machine to be defective and not serviceable within a short period resulting huge loss. The complainant submits that unless the Xerox machine supplied by the 1^st opposite party and its defects would be rectified, it cannot be used.  The complainant also gave the Xerox machine for carrying out necessary repairs to M/s. P.K. Xerox Service Centre on repeated occasions after expending huge amount.  The 1^st opposite party while selling the Xerox machine under invoice obtained a letter in a non-judicial stamp paper stating that the Xerox machine have no warranty or guaranty.   The complainant submits that since the failure of the Xerox machine, the complainant’s daily life also totally damaged.  The complainant was not able to pay the loan amount demanded by the 2^nd opposite party.  On 11.09.2012, the complainant received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party bank.  Immediately, the complainant issued legal notice dated:18.09.2012 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties has not come forward to sent any reply.   The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that on 03.09.2011, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and stated that she is in the process of starting photocopy business availing loan from the 2^nd opposite party under non-employment scheme and purchased the impugned photocopier machine for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- and the complainant took delivery of the photocopier machine on 21.02.2012 itself.  The 1^st opposite party states that he educated the complainant about the pros and cons of various brand and the complainant zeroed upon Canon Col Multi Func Device Model 3000 Series valued around Rs.2,95,000/- and requested him to issue a invoice which the 1^st opposite party complied with.  The 1^st opposite party has not given any guarantee for the performance of the machine.  If at all any warranty or guarantee requires, it should be claimed from the manufacturer.  The 1^st opposite party states that he is not a service provider of its own or under the manufacturer he is only seller and the complainant purchased the second hand Xerox machine.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the 2^nd opposite party sanctioned the loan to purchase a Xerox machine.  The 2^nd opposite party states that he demanded the dues on the loan incurred by the complainant for the purpose of purchase of Xerox machine.  The 2^nd opposite party states that he is not a necessary party as the 2^nd opposite party is nowhere connected to the said defects in functioning of the said Xerox machine.  The 2^nd opposite party states the complainant has impleaded only as a Pro-forma party and no relief is claimed against him.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 alone is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party made an endorsement that ‘we are the formal party, we are not filing any proof affidavit’.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss due to the purchase of defective Xerox machine as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony, miscellaneous expenses with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant and 1^st opposite party’s Counsels also.  The complainant has not sought for any relief against the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is added as a formal party.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she is an educated women availed the opportunity of financial assistance offered by the Government under ‘Unemployed Youth Employment Generation Programme’.   Ex.A1 is the copy of application form for financial assistance under ‘Unemployed Youth Employment Generation Programme’.  Accordingly, the complainant had chosen the business of purchasing Xerox machine for her livelihood. On 20.12.2012, the complainant purchased a Xerox machine (Canon Colour Multifunction Device 3000 Series) from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- under invoice No.XC/11-12/142 as per Ex.A4, copy of bill.  The 2^nd opposite party bank also sanctioned the loan for the due purchase of Xerox machine as per Ex.A2.  Immediately after disbursement of loan amount, the Xerox machine was delivered by the 1^st opposite party with high hope of making the best use of Xerox machine.  But to disappointment and dismay, the complainant found that the machine to be defective and not serviceable within a short period resulting huge loss proves unfair trade practice.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that unless the Xerox machine supplied by the 1^st opposite party and its defects would be rectified, it cannot be used.  The complainant also gave the Xerox machine for carrying out necessary repairs to M/s. P.K. Xerox Service Centre on repeated occasions expending huge amount as per Ex.A5 to Ex.A8.  The 1^st opposite party while selling the Xerox machine under invoice as per Ex.A4, obtained letter in a non-judicial stamp paper stating that the Xerox machine have no warranty or guaranty. But the manufacturing company provided the guarantee / warranty has not been given to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party without any reason proves suppression of material facts and deficiency in service and unfair trade also.  Further the contention of the complainant is that since the failure of the Xerox machine, the complainant’s daily life also totally damaged.  The complainant was not able to pay the loan amount demanded by the 2^nd opposite party.  On 11.09.2012, the complainant received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party bank as per Ex.A9.  Immediately, the complainant issued legal notice dated:18.09.2012 as per Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties as per Ex.A12 & Ex.13 respectively.  But the opposite parties has not come forward to sent any reply.

8.     The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party would contend that on a bare reading of the complaint itself proves that the claim of the complainant is imaginary.  Because, the complainant purchased a second hand Xerox machine having no warranty and guarantee.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A4, invoice / delivery challan, it is very clear that warranty must be claimed from the manufacturer only.  Thereby, it is very clear that the impugned Xerox machine have warranty.  The 1^st opposite party is a seller and not a dealer of the manufacturer of Canon Company.  The complainant has not come forward to implead the manufacturer of the impugned Xerox machine in order to avail the warranty benefits of the Xerox machine.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that at the outset itself, the complainant cannot get any remedy in this case against the 1^st opposite party.  Under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which it reads as follows:-

“Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

9.     Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that on 03.09.2011, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and stated that she is in the process of starting photocopy business availing loan from the 2^nd opposite party under non-employment scheme and purchased the impugned photocopier machine for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- and the complainant took delivery of the photocopier machine on 21.02.2012 itself.  The 1^st opposite party has not given any guarantee for the performance of the machine.  If at all any warranty or guarantee requires, it should be claimed from the manufacturer.  The complainant executed Ex.B1, Copy of document admitting that there is no guarantee or warranty available with the impugned machine against the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is not a service provider of its own or under the manufacturer he is only seller and the complainant purchased the second hand Xerox machine.  The complainant is not entitled to any service or replacement or repayment from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant also has not come forward to implead the manufacturer in this case.

10.    The learned Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that the complainant has impleaded only as a Pro-forma party and no relief is claimed against him.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that after availing loan under the Government scheme, the complainant purchased the Xerox machine.  The complainant is duty bound  to pay the EMI regularly.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of September 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of loan application
Ex.A2	06.09.2011	Copy of loan sanction letter
Ex.A3	08.11.2011	Copy of loan offer letter
Ex.A4	20.02.2012	Copy of Xerox machine purchasing bill
Ex.A5	22.02.2012	Copy of Xerox machine repair bill
Ex.A6	27.02.2012	Copy of Xerox machine repair bill
Ex.A7	06.03.2012	Copy of Xerox machine repair bill
Ex.A8	26.03.2012	Copy of Xerox machine repair bill
Ex.A9	11.09.2012	Copy of E.M.I. letter from the bank
Ex.A10	18.09.2012	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A11	18.09.2012	Copy of legal notice to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A12	22.09.2012	Copy of acknowledgement card received from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A13		Copy of acknowledgement card received from the 2nd opposite party

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

21.02.2012

Document executed by the complainant

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  ‘No Proof Affidavit’

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT