DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of August 2014
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Date of filing :24/09/2013
(C.C.No.157/2013)
K.Sreenivasan,
S/o.K.V.K.Udayar,
16/76(1) Proprietor, Kairali Shop,
N.S.Tower, Kalmandapam Junction,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.N.Rajesh)
V/s
Satheesan,
S/o.Chandran,
Yuva Copier Care,
4/380, Anamari Building,
Yakara Junction,
Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.K.Sudheer)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complainant purchased a new Photocopier machine from opposite party. Altogether complainant paid an amount of Rs.52,000/-. This includes the cost of stabilizer and cost paid for replacing defective spare parts. The machine has 6 months warranty. Amount was paid by way of cheque. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party had supplied a defective machine to the complainant. Within one week of purchase itself, complainant could not use the machine as the paper got jammed in the machine. Opposite party sent their technician for repair, but they could not set it alright. Complainant has purchased the machine to make out living, but he could not derive any income as the machine remained defective throughout the period. Complainant has registered a complaint before the South Police Station. They directed the complainant to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum. Hence complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.96,745/- as compensation to the complainant.
Opposite party filed version contending the following:
Opposite party denied the say of the complainant that he has supplied a new photocopier machine to the complainant. According to opposite party complainant requested for purchase of second hand machine and the same was supplied for Rs.23,000/-. Three months warranty was also given. Complainant has paid the full amount by way of installments. The machine was working satisfactorily. The defects if any was due to the employment of workers who are not well versed in the functioning of the machine. Hence opposite party prays for dismissal of complaint.
Evidence adduced consists of chief affidavit and Ext.A1 toA7 marked on the side of complainant.
Issues for consideration
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite
party ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Heard both parties.
As per Ext.A1 & A2 it is seen that complainant has purchased a second hand photocopier machine. Hence the allegation of the complainant that he was supplied a second hand machine under the head ‘brand new’ was found to be false. Further contention that the machine has 6 months warranty is also not supported by any documentary evidence. The admitted case of the opposite party is that he has supplied a second hand machine with 3 months warranty. Date of purchase as per Ext.A1 is 8/03/2013. Though no expert commission is taken for proving defect, Ext.A2 & A3 evidences the fact that the machine was entrusted with opposite party for repair on 05/07/2013 & 13/08/2013 with complaints of paper jam. It is seen that the complaints aroused after three months of purchase. Thereafter there is no evidence of any complaints. Hence we are of the view that complainant failed to prove a case in his favour.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of August 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of cash bill dated 8/3/13 for Rs.23,000/-
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Stabilizer cash bill dated 5/7/13 for Rs.2,800/-
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of delivery plate bill for Rs.1,200/-
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of brochure of photocopier No.IR3530 (small)
Ext.A5 - Photocopy of brochure of photocopier No.IR3530 (large)
Ext.A6 – Copy of details claim for compensation.
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Register of Petition of South Police Station.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
No cost allowed.
