KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.723/02
JUDGMENT DATED : 9/6/2008
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. Ricoh India Ltd.,
DGP House, 88C,
Old Prabha Devi Road,
Mumbai-400 025.
: APPELLANTS
2. Ricoh India Ltd.,
Janaki Vilas, TC 28/2773,
Kuthiravattom Lane,
Near Old GPOO,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
(By Adv.S.Suresh)
Vs
1. T.K..Shiju Sreekandan,
Krishna Bhavan, TC 42/639
Vallakkadavu P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
: RESPONDENTS
2. M/s. Amar Business Systems,
41/300, Mullassery Canal Road,
Cochin – 11.
(By Adv. Pathiripally S.Krishnakumary & Others)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties 1 & 3 in OP .No.695/1998 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants and the 2nd opposite party/dealer have been directed to pay Rs.95,500/- with 16% interest from 9/7/1998 till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost and Rs.10,000/- as general damages. It is also mentioned that on payment of the above amount the machine can be taken by the opposite party who is pays it.
2. It is the case of the complainant that she is an unemployed lady who obtained a loan under P.M.R.Y loan scheme for setting up a Photostat unit for self employment. The DD for Rs.95,000/- was provided by the Indian Overseas Bank, Aristo Junction, Thiruvananthapuram for the R.P.G. Richo Photostat Machine No.F.T.3513. The machine was supplied belated after about 2 months. Further the machines supplied was a second hand one. On enquiries the complainant came to know that the actual price of the machine is only Rs.77,616/- including taxes. The excess amount was not repaid although the petitioner demanded for the same. No original bill, warranty card etc., were supplied to the petitioner. Lawyer notice was sent but without any response. The petitioner has to repay the instalments of the loan amount. She has sought for an order directing the refund of the balance amount of Rs.20,270/- and also sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost.
3. R2, the dealer stood absent.
4. R1 and R3 the distributors have filed a joint version contending that there is no privity of contract with the complainant and the respondents. It is contended that they have not committed any unfair trade practice. They used to supply only brand new machines.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant, DW1 the Manager of the 1st & 3rd opposite parties, Ext.D1, CW1 and Ext.C1.
6. At the outset it is to be noted that the Forum has ordered that a sum of Rs.95,500/- with 16% interest is to be returned to the complainant although in the complaint filed there is no such prayer.
7. We find that the case of the complainant is that the machine supplied is a second hand one. In Ext.C1 the report of the Commissioner it is mentioned that the date of manufacture could not be identified and also that there is no quality control test label. It is also noted that the machine does not look a new one. A big crack on the front cover is also noted. The performance of the machine is also mentioned as defective. In the copies produced by the machine, there are lines etc.. There was also frequent paper jam. The background and copy quality was not good. It is mentioned that the defects can be rectified. It is pointed out by the appellant that the machine has been inspected on 20/5/2000 much after the filing of the complaint. We find that the complaint is filed on 17/11/98. All the same, we find no reason as such the discard of the report of the Commissioner. It is further contended that the appellants have received only a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a value of the machine vide Ext.P1 delivery chelan. But we find that there is no such allegation in the version filed. The lawyer notice sent was also not replied to. It has also to be noted that for their deficiencies etc of the dealer,the distributor is liable.
8. It was also contended by the counsel that there was illicit arrangement between the complainant and 2nd opposite party and that the 2nd opposite party/dealer provided the bill for Rs.95,500/- in order to obtain the entire loan amount of Rs.95,000/- (the Forum has noted the amount as Rs.95,500/- which is a mistake). We find that in the version filed by the 1st & 3rd opposite parties there is no such allegation.
9. In the circumstances we herewith modify the order of the Forum as follows: The opposite parties would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,270/- as claimed by the complainant with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint till realization. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed in part.
It is submitted that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,62,253/- on 11/2/03 before the Forum as directed by this Commission. The appellant will be entitled to withdraw the balance amount after satisfying the order of this Commission in the present appeal.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
PK
