The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is Sri Biswanath Sahu, Prop. M/s. B.N Reprographic Services, I.T.I Square, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood, had purchased three Xerox machines (Konica Minolta Brand) from the O.P @ Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Seventy two thousand) only for two Xerox machines and the other @ Rs.77,500/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand five hundred) only along with accessories and installation charges. Out of which, the Complainant purchased two Xerox machine in his name and the other one in his sister’s name- Nibedita Acharya of Baripada, dist- Mayurbhanj. Cost of all these three machines is Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty thousand) only, out of which the Complainant has paid Rs.1,64,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty four thousand) only in different dates and also handed over two nos. of post dated blank cheques to the O.P against outstanding dues of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty six thousand) only (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.48,000/-) vide cheque Nos.231304 and 231305 payable at Axis Bank, Balasore branch. As per direction of the Complainant, the O.P installed three Xerox machines in different places in different dates. But, within two months, the Complainant found that the Xerox machines seem to be defective, as such the Complainant intimated the same to the O.P. Accordingly, the O.P after testing the machine, had taken away some parts from the machine and assured to replace. The O.P has not changed the spare parts even after several reminders by the Complainant, for which the Xerox machines are not functioning properly and have broken down, causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. The Complainant served legal notice on 24.11.2016 through Regd. post with AD to the O.P requesting him to settle the above dispute and take back the defective Xerox machine and return back the blank cheques, kept as security, but said notice was returned undelivered on 25.11.2016 by the postal authority. Cause of action to file this case arose on 25.11.2016. The O.P has neither repaired nor replaced the Xerox machine of the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for repair/ replacement of the defective Xerox machine along with payment of compensation for mental agony and financial loss with interest including return of two post dated cheques taken as security.
3. Though the O.P has appeared in this case through his Advocate, but has not filed his written version. The O.P is set ex-parte. Neither the O.P nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.
4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.P has not filed any documents in his support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has purchased two Xerox machines @ Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Seventy two thousand) only per machine and another Xerox machine @ Rs.77,500/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand five hundred) only from the O.P along with accessories and installation charges. The first two Xerox machines were purchased in his name and the other one was purchased in the name of Nibedita Acharya. But, strangely enough no money receipt/ cash memo regarding purchase of first two Xerox machines from the O.P has been filed by the Complainant. However, the O.P is set ex-parte as he did not file any written version and also did not contest at the time of hearing of this case. Nibedita Acharya, the sister of the Complainant is not a Party in this case for the reason best known to them. So, his case should not be considered at all in this Forum. So, the next remains about purchase of two Xerox machines in the name of the Complainant. He has filed certain Service Proforma invoice and inspection report, which shows about annual service agreement. The O.P did not repair the two Xerox machines as per allegation of the Complainant, which is believable as no contrary material is available before this Forum. So, the O.P is duty bound to repair the above said two Xerox machines of the Complainant.
5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I come to the conclusion it is a fit case to allow it, for which the O.P is liable for repair of the above said two Xerox machines of the Complainant, subject to deposit of the same before the O.P by the Complainant for repair within 30 days of receipt of this order. The O.P is also liable for repair of the same within 30 days of receipt of the above said two Xerox machines from the Complainant and also the O.P is liable for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is allowed in part on ex-parte against the O.P with cost. The O.P is directed to repair the above said two Xerox machines of the Complainant, subject to deposit of the same before the O.P by the Complainant for repair within 30 days of receipt of this order. The O.P is also directed to repair the same within 30 days of receipt of the above said two Xerox machines from the Complainant and the O.P is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P as per Law in case of failure by the O.P to comply the Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 26th day of December, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
