Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/10/2018

J.Thiyagarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Imaging System Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.Chandra sekaran

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                          MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.10/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.12/2016 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

J. Thiyagarajan

S/o. K. Jambulingam                                      M/s. S. Chandrasekaran

28, Station Road, Korattur                                      Counsel for

Chennai – 600 080                                          Appellant / Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

 

Unitech Imaging Systems Ltd.,

Old No.138, New No.2, 1^st Floor                    M/s. Jayachandran Associates

Chamier Road, Nandambakkam                               Counsel for

Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035                         Respondent/Opposite Party

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.1.11.2017 in CC.No.12/2016.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.1.11.2017 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South), in CC.No.12/2016 by dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant/complainant herein. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

 3.      The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

           The complainant is conducting his business in internet cafe, DTP, Project Typing, Scanning, Xerox etc., for his livelihood and for his business use he approached the opposite party for the purchase of Canon A3 Digital Copier 1R 3530 (Machine SL No.RC Machine) on 3.5.2010.  At the time of purchase, the cost of the machine was Rs.67,795/- and Rs.6000/- for stabilizer, totalling of Rs.73,795/-.  He purchased the said machine through an Hypothecation Agreement with Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., The complainant is paying a sum of Rs.5500/- as monthly due towards repayment of the above said loan to Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,  At the time of purchase, the opposite party had offered warranty for the machine upto 3 months or 30 thousand copies, whichever is earlier.  Further the opposite party had assured that even in case of any fault, the spare parts are easily available in market.  In such a situation within 40 days from the date of purchase, the said machine started giving problem and did not work properly.  Hence the complainant contacted the opposite party and made a complaint.  After 3 days from the complainant’s complaint, one of the staffs contacted the complainant and inspected the machine, and informed that the reason for the mal-functioning of the machine was due to filament problem and that since it was within the warranty period, it could be rectified free of charges.  The staff of the opposite party removed the faulty filament and took it with him and requested the complainant two days time for repair and refitting.  The complainant with the idea of developing his business had purchased the Xerox machine and informed the customers about the availability of additional service.  But the machine started giving problem within 40 days from the date of purchase.  The complainant though requested the opposite party to rectify the problem immediately, even after more than 3 months the opposite party had not replaced the filament and rectified the fault.  Even after 30 days when the opposite parties offered to install a replacement machine for the time being, they never informed that the spare parts for the complainant’s Xerox machine are not available and thus misrepresented the facts.  The Xerox machine is still within the warranty period.  The opposite party had supplied the defective machine without proper inspection, and inspite of requests they have not rectified the defects.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 24.9.2010, calling upon the opposite party to replace the machine with a new machine and to pay compensation.  But the opposite party had not come forward to comply with the demands made by the complainant.  Hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to deliver a new machine, or to refund the cost of the machine, and to pay Rs.20000/- per month from 3.10.2010 till date, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.20000/-.

 

4.       Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party remained absent before the District Commission, hence they were set exparte, and an order had been passed on merit in dismissing the complaint.  Aggrieved over the said order, the complainant had come forward with this appeal. 

 

5.       In support of the contention, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A8. 

 

6.       After careful consideration, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have rectified all the defects then and there, and after the warranty period they are not duty bound to rectify the defects without paying any service charges.   Thus holding, had dismissed the complaint. 

 

7.       Before this commission the Respondent/ opposite party though appeared through counsel, had not appeared for submitting their arguments.  Hence we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the documents and the order impugned.

 

8.       It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the canon copier machine for a sum of Rs.73,795/- through an hypothecation agreement with City Union Finance Limited, and was paying Rs.5500/- towards EMI.  According to the complainant, the Xerox machine had given problem within 40 days from the date of installation.  On complaint, the staff of the opposite party came, and inspected the machine, and informed that there is problem in the filament, and assured to rectify the same free of cost.  But that had not rectified the same.  The opposite party had not informed that the spare parts had to come from Mumbai and it would take sometime to rectify the same.  The complainant had further submitted that the opposite party had arranged for one standby machine till it was rectified.  Now the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had supplied a faulty machine, and because of the same he suffered monetary loss.  Therefore, he prayed for replacement of the said machine.

 

9.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that only when the opposite party refused to rectify the problem that had occurred in the machine during the warranty period, the question of attributing deficiency of service would arise.  But in the instant case, even according to the complainant, the staff of the opposite party came to the complainant’s place for inspecting the machine, and had taken the faulty filament for rectification.  Since there was a delay in getting the spare parts, it could not be rectified.  But in the meantime the opposite party had also arranged for another standby machine.  In the above circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

 

10.     Further we find that the complainant had not produced any invoice to show that he spent Rs.73,795/- towards the purchase of the machine.  Considering all these aspects, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint, in which we do not find any valid reason to interfere.  Therefore, we have no other option except to dismiss the appeal for devoid of merits. 

11.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South), in CC.No.12/2016 dt.1.11.2017.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT