No. 3/27.10.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Respondent files BNA.

The Complainant has come up in appeal against the judgement and order passed by the concerned District Forum in Complaint Case No. 2010/06.

The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a photocopy machine at a total consideration of Rs.95,600/- for maintaining his livelihood by way of self employment.  It has been alleged in the said complaint that soon after purchase of the said photocopy machine it started giving trouble for which the Complainant informed the O.P. on several occasions without any result.  Ultimately on 05.12.2009 i.e. after expiry of the warranty period a man was sent by O.P. for inspection of the said machine who found the expose lamp of the machine as defective.  The said defective lamp was thus replaced upon payment  of Rs.10,007/- by the Complainant.  It has further been alleged that after purchase of the said photocopy machine, the Complainant took quotation from a dealer at Siliguri who quoted the price at an amount less by Rs.31,400/- from the purchase price.  Lastly it has been alleged that Stabiliser and Pedestal were not delivered to the Complainant along with the photocopy machine although price for the same was paid by the Complainant.

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the first two points as above.  The complaint regarding the sale of a defective machine to the Complainant was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the defects, if any, in the aforesaid photocopy machine transpired and that the said expose lamp became defective during the warranty and such defects were also intimated to the O.P. within the warranty period.  The allegation that has been made by the Complainant that an excess amount of Rs.31,400/- was recovered by the O.P. on the price of the said photocopy machine has also not been accepted by the District Forum on the ground that the quotation that has been submitted by the Complainant in support of such allegation was of the month of November, 2009 while the purchase was made by the Complainant in the month of May, 2009.  It has been noted in the aforesaid impugned order that price of the electronic goods varies considerably with the change of time and such quotation taken in the month of November, 2009 is not the proper indicative of the exact valuation of the said photocopy machine in the month of May, 2009.

We do not find any fault in the findings arrived at by the District Forum.  In course of hearing of this appeal on behalf of the Appellant nothing has been shown and/or produced to establish that the defects in the said photocopy machine were revealed soon after the same was purchased by the Complainant or that complaints were made by him to the O.P. within the warranty period stating and/or indicating any of the defects that were revealed within the warranty period of the said photocopy machine.  Mere allegation made in the complaint does not take the place of proof of the same.  The Complainant has also not led any evidence whatsoever to prove the allegation so made in the complaint. 

Evidently the Complainant obtained the quotation of the price of photocopy machine in the month of November, 2009 from a dealer at Siliguri.  In the said quotation no indication whatsoever had been given by the said dealer about the existing price of the said machine in the month of May, 2009.  In the absence of such particular the District Forum was not in a position to assess the exact valuation of the price of the said photocopy machine in the month of May, 2009.  Therefore, it cannot at all be said, in the absence of any material whatsoever about the existing price of the said photocopy machine in the month of May, 2009 that the said photocopy machine was sold to the Complainant by the O.P. at an excess price of Rs.31,400/-. 

Lastly, the complaint so far as non-supply of Stabiliser and Pedestal along with the photocopy machine by the O.P. to the Complainant has been allowed by the District Forum.  We also do not find any defect in such finding.  It is not the case of the O.P. that the Stabiliser and Pedestal were not purchased by the Complainant along with the said photocopy machine.  It has been proved on the strength of the installation report that was prepared by the man of the O.P. who went to the place of the Complainant to install the said photocopy machine, that Stabiliser and Pedestal had not been installed.  This installation report has not been denied by the O.P.  In the absence of any specific plea that Stabiliser and Pedestal were not purchased by the Complainant and in view of the aforesaid installation report we are also of the view that the O.P. failed to deliver the Stabiliser and Pedestal to the Complainant along with the photocopy machine.  It has only been contended on behalf of the O.P. in support of his contention that such Stabiliser and Pedestal were supplied to the Complainant and he had received those two accessories by signing the Road Challan.  We are not in a position to accept such contention because the O.P. has not filed any cross-appeal in respect of order made by the District Forum in relation to the non-supply of Stabiliser and Pedestal.  For all the reasons as aforesaid we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.