BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 17 OF 2014
Shri Digendra Debbarma - Complainant
Versus
Sri Abhijit Dutta Bhowmik
Proprietor of Santanil Systems,
Battala Super Market, Agartala - Opposite Party
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Sachindra Ch. Das
MEMBER
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Self.
For the Opposite Party - Self.
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 30.01.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case under Consumers Protection Act arises on the petition filed by Shri Digendra Debbarma against the proprietor of Santanil Systems, opposite party.
2. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that he purchased one colour xerox machine from the respondent. Price of the Xerox machine was Rs. 3,02,999/-. He paid cheque of Tripura Gramin Bank on 09.10.2013 and the proprietor promised to deliver the machine within one month but it was not delivered. After two months delay the machine was delivered but it was 2 drawer machine through the opposite party had shown the picture of 4 drawer machine with wheels. Petitioner objected but the opposite party told that 4 drawer machine would be available after two month. He promised to refund Rs. 1 lakh if 4 drawer machine not available. The petitioner approached the company. Company informed that money not sent for drawer machine. The opposite party promised to deliver the machine by the first week of January, 2014 but it was not delivered. The machine supplied by the opposite party was not working. He refused to repair the machine as warranty period gone. As such, the petitioner prays for compensation.
2. After receipt of the notice, the O.P., proprietor of Santanil Systems appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner received the xerox machine with full satisfaction. He did not make any complaint within six months, warranty period. So, this claim for compensation is liable to be dismissed.
3. Both the parties were then asked to produce their evidence in support of their contentions. Accordingly the petitioner examined one witness and produced some documents relating to purchase of colour xerox machine.
O.P. also produced some documents and examined one witness.
4. On the basis of evidence, I shall now determine whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by the O.P.
In order to determine the above point, the evidence is to be evaluated properly.
FINDINGS & DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner purchased the colour xerox machine from the O.P. the amount of Rs. 3,02,999/-. Voucher is produced and it is admitted by the O.P. It is also admitted that proprietor after receipt of the price of the Xerox machine made two month’s delay in supplying it. The petitioner claimed that O.P. promised to supply 4 drawer machine but actually 2 drawer machine was supplied. Some E-mail correspondences are produced but from those correspondence it cannot be ascertained that 4 drawer Taskalfa 2550 ci machine was available for the amount of Rs.3,02,999/-. The price list not produced. Admitted position is that Taskalfa 2550 ci machine was supplied by the O.P. According to the petitioner it is of 2 drawer machine. In such a case, the petitioner should have rejected the product as it is not in his satisfaction. According to the petitioner the O.P. promised to supply 4 drawer machine within two month but that fact is not provide by any independent witness or any documentary evidence. The fact of refund of Rs. 1 lakh in case of failure to supply 4 drawer machine also not comes out from the evidence. What is the actual price of the product that was supplied and what is the price if 4 drawer machine, is to be clearly established in such a situation. When this cloud cannot be removed this Consumer Court cannot come to the decision about the deficiency of service in this regard. But from the admitted evidence, it is clear that after two months delay that Xerox machine was supplied. Admittedly, the O.P. agreed to supply it within one week after payment but it was not supplied. It is breach of promise and due to this deficiency of service the petitioner suffered. The petitioner purchased the machine for business purpose so, related available then the proprietor should not have taken the money from delay in supplying the machine. No cogent evidence given in regard to supply of defective machine or 4 drawer machine promised to be supplied. So, this claim can not be considered. But for this delay definitely there was deficiency of service by the proprietor of Santanil Systems.
As the warranty period already gone and it is admitted, so repair can not be done freely but in such a case when information given and there was promise machine, so, direction is hereby given to repair the machine free of cost. For harassment and deficiency of service by the O.P., compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) is granted in favour of the petitioner.
6. In the result, petition is allowed. O.P. Santanil Systems is directed to pay compensation amount Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the petitioner for deficiency of service and also to repair the machine free of cost within 2 (two) months without fail.
7. The case stands disposed of.
8. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Sachindra Ch. Das) (Asish Pal)
Member President
Consumer Dispute Resressal Consumer Dispute Resressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur
