BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 292/2003 Filed on 30.07.2003 Dated : 15.12.2008 Complainant:
Saraswathy, Jaya House, Kurisadi Mukku, Kariavattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Riyad. A) Opposite parties:
HCL Infosystems Ltd. The Managing Director, HCL Infosystems Ltd, Office Automation Division, II Floor, Building No. XL/8794, M.G. Road, Kochi. Territory Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd, Office Automation Division, T.C 16/1485/394, Opp: Geethanjali Hospital, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. B. Vasudevan Nair)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 29.11.2008, the Forum on 15.12.2008 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER
The complainant's case in a nutshell is as follows: the complainant has been conducting an institution by name 'Saraswathy Photostat' since 1995 and for the same she had purchased a Thoshiba 1650 model photostat machine by paying an amount of Rs. 1,26,500/- on 21.04.1995 from M.S. Automation, Thiruvananthapuram. Later on the complainant had entered into a comprehensive service maintenance contract with the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party was providing the service accordingly. During the pendency of comprehensive service maintenance, the machine was reconditioned by the opposite party for payment of Rs. 16,000/- though the opposite party claimed for an amount of Rs. 24,000/-. Meanwhile on 13.02.2001, during the course of service, the drum of the machine fell down from the Engineer accidentally and the drum became useless. The Engineer promised to replace the said drum free of cost and cure the defects within a week, but they never turned up. Hence the complainant repaired the same and purchased a new drum also for which the complainant had incurred Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 9000/- respectively. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 57,000/- paid towards comprehensive maintenance contract along with repairing charge of Rs. 12,000/- and compensation. The opposite parties though filed version remain ex-parte.
Complainant's Power of Attorney holder filed affidavit as per the order on 27.12.2004 and he was examined as PW1 marked Exts. P1 and P2. PW1 has not been cross-examined. Hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. The report filed by the expert commissioner appointed by the Forum is marked as Ext. C1.
The following questions arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not rectified the defects of his Photostat machine during the period of service contract entered into between the parties. Exts. P1 and P2 prove the existence of comprehensive service maintenance contract between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has alleged that, the 3rd opposite party had damaged the drum of the Photostat machine during the course of service and the drum got damaged due to the inadvertent and negligent act of the Engineer of the opposite parties. The service engineer had promised to rectify the same and replace the drum, but it was not done. Ext. P2 is the copy of the comprehensive service maintenance contract between the complainant and the opposite party for a period from 29.06.2000 to 28.06.2003 for an amount of Rs. 57,000/-. The complaint alleged is well within the period of said contract.
As per Ext. C1 report filed by the expert commissioner appointed by this Forum, he reports that the Photostat machine with model No. Toshiba 1650 from HCL was not functioning, drum in the machine was deformed in shape, the machine is no longer suited for normal use because of deformed drum. The commissioner has further reported that the damage in the drum could be due to a fall from height of a few feet. The complainant has alleged that the drum fell down from the hands of the service engineer of the opposite parties during service. The opposite parties have never denied the same. Hence the pleadings in the complaint stands admitted. The failure of the opposite parties in not attending to the repair and service under comprehensive service maintenance contract in time in spite of complainant's various requests amounts to deficiency in service in the manner and nature of performance on the part of the opposite parties resulting loss to the complainant. The opposite parties were obliged to rectify the defects as per the contract. As per the pleadings in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party, as per the contract, for about 8 months, i.e; till 13.02.2001. Contract is for a period of 3 years, i.e; for 36 months, which means for one month the amount comes to Rs. 1586/-. In the above circumstance, we presume that the complainant has availed the service for Rs. 12,688/-(Rs. 1586/- x 8) from the opposite party as per the contract. Hence the complainant is found entitled for Rs. 44312/-(Rs. 57000- Rs. 12,688= Rs. 44312). The complainant has alleged that he had paid Rs. 16,000/- to the opposite party towards reconditioning and Rs. 12,000/- for repairing also for which the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence and hence the complainant is found not entitled for the same.
In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 44,312/- along with an amount of Rs. 2500/- towards compensation and costs.
In the result, the opposite parties shall pay Rs. 44,312/- (Rupees forty four thousand three hundred and twelve only) along with an amount of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of acceptance of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% thereafter.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th December 2008.
S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
O.P. No. 292/2003 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - C. Swarnappan II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Letter dated 29.06.2000 to the complainant issued by opposite party.
P2 - Photocopy of comprehensive service maintenance contract dated 29.06.2000.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL V COURT EXHIBIT
C1 - Commission Report
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
