DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 31st day of December 2009.
Present : Smt. Seena.H (President)
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.432/1999
V.M.A. Latheef Etty Communications Systems Palakkad – 678 001 - Complainant ( Adv.C. Mohanram & M.P. Ravi) V/s Sivadas Jeeva Enterprises 08/08, Near Masjid College Road Palakkad (Adv.K. Venugopal ) - Opposite party
O R D E R By Smt. Seena.H, President The case of the complainant in brief Complainant on 10/05/1999 went to Jeeva Enterprises run by the opposite party and demanded for a Canon 3030 Photo Copier Machine. Accordingly the opposite party gave a quotation for Rs.68,000/-. As per the quotation, complainant gave a Demand draft dated 04/06/99 for Rs.68,000/- to the opposite party. At the time of handing over the Demand draft, opposite party promised to deliver the machine within one week. But opposite party failed to supply machine within time. When the complainant demanded for return of money, the opposite party told that he will supply Canon 3725 machine and within one month he will replace the same with Canon 3030 machine. Accordingly 3725 machine was installed on 01/07/99. The opposite party failed to deliver Canon 3030 machine as promised. The machine which was delivered to the complainant was also defective. It used to stop functioning on several occasions. The act of opposite party in not delivering the agreed machine even though complainant paid the full amount amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Opposite party filed version contending the following. Opposite party admits the receipt of Rs.68,000/- by way of Demand Draft by the complainant. According to opposite party, - 2 - Rs.32,000/- was returned to the complainant at his request due to some financial difficulties as stated by him. 3725 machine was supplied as the complainant specifically demanded the said machine which was of value Rs.2,000/- less than the earlier ordered one. The defects noted in the said machine was repaired by the opposite party several times. According to the opposite party the defects was due to the mishandling by the complainant. Complainant has not paid the balance amount till date and the complaint is filed to avoid the said payment.
The forum in its earlier order dated 23/02/2005, has allowed the complaint. Thereafter matter was taken up by the opposite party. Honourable State Commission was pleased to set aside the complaint with a direction to permit the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the case on merits. In due compliance with the order of the Honourable State Commission notice was issued to the complainant. Notice returned with endorsement 'not known' . It is seen that the complainant was represented by the counsel in the appeal and it is clearly stated in the order of Honourable State Commission that the case is posted to 29/02/2009. Since the complainant did not appear, with the available evidence on record we disposed of the complaint.
The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of chief affidavit and Exhibit P1 and P2. Opposite party filed affidavit. Exhibit B1 to B4 were marked on the side of opposite party.
Issues for consideration are: 1. Whether the machine supplied by the opposite party was defective, and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? 2. if so, what is the relief and costs?
Issues 1 & 2 The specific case of the complainant is the non supply of agreed machine in time by the opposite party and regarding the defects in the machine already supplied. Complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.68,000/- for the purchase of 3030 Photo Copier Machine. - 3 - Opposite party has failed to supply the machine in time. Opposite party has inter alia contented that from the total amount of Rs.68,000/- received, complainant has taken a loan of Rs.30,000/- promising to pay the balance amount at the time of installation of the machine. Further due to financial difficulties complainant requested the opposite party to deliver 3725 machine which was of value Rs.2000/- less than the 3030 machine.
We have gone through all the relevant documents on records. There is no dispute as to the receipt of Rs.68,000/- being the price of the photocopier machine by the opposite party. The version of opposite party is that complainant requested him to supply 3725 machine which is of value Rs.2000/- less than the earlier order seems to be unbelievable. A person who is ready to spare Rs.68,000/- will never compromise for quality for such a meager amount of Rs.2,000/-. Further opposite party himself has stated in the version that earlier also such instances of non payment has happened with the complainant. Knowing all these facts, opposite party has paid Rs.30,000/- from the whole amount received is also against reason. Moreover it is the usual practice of such companies to provide a spare machine till the supply of new one or during the period of repair.
Opposite party has admitted that the 3725 machine became defective on 01/07/99 and 13/07/99. It is evident from Exhibit B3 service report that the mother board was replaced and the machine was set ok on 01/07/99. Opposite party contented that it was due to the mishandling of the complainant. But it was a brand new machine installed on 21/06/99 as per Exhibit B2 and the same was found defective in the next month of purchase itself. Moreover as per Exhibit B4 a new 3725 was seen to be installed on 03/09/99. If the earlier supplied machine was not defective, what is the necessity of supplying a new one? The reason explained by the opposite party that it is as per the request of the complainant for making balance payment cannot be believed at all.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the act of opposite party in not providing the agreed machine in time and also providing a defective machine amounts to deficiency in service . - 4 - In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.68,000/- being value of the photo copier machine together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- . Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December 2009. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. P1 - Bill No. JEEVA 162/99 dated 15.5.99 of Jeeva Enterprises for Rs.68,000/- Ext. P2 – Receipt No.114 dated 05.06.99 for Rs.68,000/- from Jeeva Enterprises
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Ext. B1 – Voucher of Jeeva Enterprises dated 05/06/99 for Rs.32,000/-
2. Ext. B2 - Installation report of Jeeva Enterprises dated 21/06/2009. 3. Ext. B3 – Service Report of Digital Copier Systems dated 01/07/99 4. Ext. B4 - Service Report of Jeeva Enterprises dated 03/09/99 Forums Exhibits Nil Costs Allowed.
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
