BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 9th day of December, 2005.
CD.No.92/2004
P.Bala Tirupathi,
S/o P.Basawaiah,
H.No.MIG-II84,
Opp.M.P.D.O. Office,
Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Proprietor,
Arveti Enterprises,
18/27, Nehru Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite Party
This complaint coming on 8.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, Hon ble President)
1. The CD case of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the refund of Rs.65,000/- i.e. cost of machine as per invoice, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of this case from the opposite party alleging the purchase of a Reconditioned (RC) Xerox machine model No.4835 of Canon Xerox from the opposite party on 19-7-2004 for Rs.65,000/- raising loan of Rs.55,000/- under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana scheme from Andhra Bank, Vignyan Mandir Branch, Kurnool and Rs.10,000/- on a private loan and, further alleging that even though the D.D. for said amount was delivered to the opposite party in the month of November 2003 itself the purchased machine was delivered to him on 19-7-2004 only and the said machine is not original but an assembled one and the defects developed therein being not rectified by the opposite party the said conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service.
2. In response to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party made his appearance and contested the case filing written version denying any of its liability and seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs alleging the sale of said machine to the complainant for Rs.55,000/- only on 17-11-2003 in pursuance of a D.D. dated 13-11-2003 for said amount with three months warranty to items of said machine other than Drum, Bulb and Board and denying alleged purchased for Rs.65,000/- on 19-7-2004 and alleging the documents filed by complainant as fabricated and the machine developing any defects and its non rectification as false.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A3 and sworn affidavit of his and his third party (Xerox machine mechanic) besides to the replies obtained to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and Ex. X1 and its sworn affidavit and replies got to the interrogatories.
4. Hence the points for consideration whether the complainant as made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and there by the liability of the opposite party to the claim of the complainant.
5. The complainant alleges the purchase of said Xerox machine for Rs.65,000/- and places the Ex.A2 dated 19-7-2004 as original invoice under which said machine was purchased. While such is so the opposite party submits the purchase of said Xerox machine by the complainant for Rs.55,000/- only under invoice dated 17-11-2003 in Ex.B2 and quotation in Ex.X1 and alleging the receipt of said price amount of machine from the complainant under a draft dated 13-11-2003 and filing a receipt of D.D accordingly vide Ex.B1. The Ex.A1 filed by the complainant also envisage the receipt of D.D. for Rs.55,000/- only on 13-11-2003 from the complainant. Both the Ex.A1,B1 mentions the receipt of D.D. No.064796 dated 12-11-2003 and there by satisfies the payment there under as Rs.55,000/- only. As the complainant fails to place any cogent material as to the payment of any additional amount of Rs.10,000/-over and above the said D.D. amounts of Rs.55,000/- towards the price of said machine to the opposite party and the invoice as in Ex.X1 which is produced by Andhra Bank on being requisitioned by this Forum and which was said to have been furnished to the Andhra Bank by the complainant obtaining it from the opposite party, for grant of loan under PMRY scheme also showing the cost of said machine as Rs.55,000/-, the price of said machine remains without any doubt as of Rs.55,000/- only as envisaged in Ex.B2 invoice dated 17-11-2003.
6. When the amount of Rs.55,000/- in Ex.X1 was received by opposite party vide Ex.A1 and B1 on 13-11-2003 itself and no material is there from the complainant side to believe the cost of machine as Rs.65,000/- prior to Ex.A2 invoice dated 19-7-2004 and any cogent material is placed as to payments of any additional amount of Rs.10,000/- on and above the mentioned in Ex.A1 and B1 by the time of Ex.A2 or on the date of Ex.A2 and the material in Ex.X1, A1, B1 and B2 as consistent to each other as to price paid to the opposite party towards the said machine as Rs.55,000/- only, the purchase of said machine, irresistibly remains on the supara stated material as one made on 17-11-2003 only and not to 19-7-2004 as alleged by the complainant as no reasonable prudent shall bear any delay none the less of more than eight months without any agitation in said delivery of the machine. When all the material in Ex.X1, A1, B1 and B2 are consist to the date of purchase of machine as 17-11-2003 i.e. within a time of four days of payment of the cost of said machine vide a D.D for said amount, the variance in customers signature i.e. the signature of the complainant, with admitted signature of the complainant, does not make any countable difference to the credit of the complainant especially when the bonafidies of complainant s alleged case itself as to the purchase of said machine for Rs.65,000/- on 19-7-2004 itself remains in doubt, on his unexplained reasonable conduct at the delayed supply of machine and payment of any additional amount of Rs.10,000/- on draft amount of Rs.55,000/-
7. When the consist material in Ex.A1,B1,B2 is remaining believable as bonafide on the material in Ex.A2, purchase of said machine by complainant dates to 17-11-2003 and the terms and conditions of warranty mentioned to said machine applies to the parties having privy to said Ex.B2. The Ex.B2 mentioned the warrantee to said machine purchased by the complainant as three months from the date of dispatch i.e. 17-11-2003 to 17-2-2004. Hence the warranty does not remain in force for the occurrences and circumstances that are post to 17-2-2004.
8. As the Ex.A3 test report of machine mechanic given in pursuance of the order of this Forum dated 20-6-2005 is not remaining of any binding value on the opposite party as creating any liability on the opposite party as the said test on said machine was said to have been done by said mechanic as per Ex.A3 on 28-2-2005 – far beyond to 17-2-2004 (i.e. period of warranty) and the defects alleged in Ex.A3 as were not alleged either in the complaint averments or sworn affidavit averments of the complainant or the complainant caused any notice to the opposite party canvassing the nature of defects existing in said machine since purchase, the said defects mentioned in Ex.A3 cannot be tagged to said machine as inherent defects and there by to held any liability of the opposite party as provider of a defect machinery for cost.
9. Hence, the complainant is remaining utterly failed in establishing the deficient conduct of the opposite party in reference to the said machine purchased from the opposite party and consequently there remaining any liability of opposite party for the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcriber by him corrected and pronounced us in the open Forum on this the 9th day of December, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Receipt, dated 13-11-2003 for Rs.55,000/-
Ex.A2 Original Invoice copy the Xerox Machine, Dt.19-7-2004 for
Rs.65,000/-
Ex.A3 Test Report submitted by the Xerox Machine Mechanic Service of
S.Azaz Machanic total cost of spares of Rs.23,350/-
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Receipt of Arveti Enterprises S.No.0091, Dt.13-11-2003 for
Rs.55,000/-
Ex.B2 Original Invoice of Arveti Enterprises, No.009, Dt.17-11-2003 for
Rs.55,000/-
Ex.X1 Quotation of Arveti Enterprises, Modi Xerox, Dt.17-10-2003
Copy of Canon Xerox Machine RC for Rs.55,000/-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri. M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool
- Sri. K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
Office of the District Forum
Kurnool dt 17.12.2005.
From To
Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., The Registrar,
President, A.P. State Commission,
District Forum, Khairatabad,
Kurnool. Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub:-Consumer Affairs – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –
Submission of Application for the post of Male Member - Submitted – Reg.
Ref:- Notification Roc No. 32/APSCDRC/ ADMN / 2005 dt
8.12.2005 of the AP State Commission, Hyderabad.
# # #
In pursuance of the notification vide reference cited above, I am submitting my application for the post of Male Member in AP State Commission, Hyderabad.
Yours faithfully
PRESIDENT
District Forum: Kurnool
