PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

 

 

4.       On appearance O.P. filed the version mainly contending that complainant who is running a Travel Agency by name. R.R. Travels and a STD booth approached O.P. to buy a Cannon printer and copier Machine and stated that her requirement was about 40 copies per minute and wanted automatic document feeder facilities and automatic back to back unlimited copies facilities; After full demonstration Complainant agreed to purchase a model IR 400 printer of Cannon make.  After convinced of the of the function of the machine complainant placed an order for IR 400 Cannon  printer and accessories; warranty of the machine is 50,000/- copies or 3 months which ever is earlier. After installation on 29/5/2007, on19/6/2007 and on 23/6/2007 O.P. visited and gave the service Copy of the service report is given to the complainant. Copy of the report is produced. On 1/8/2007 O.P. requested the complainant to accept the annual maintenance contract for a period of one year at a cost Rs.7000 p.a. Complainant rejected the offer and replied that machine is working fine. Complainant has availed bank loan. The bank official verified and reported to the bank about the installation. Since warranty period of 3 months is over O.P. is not bound by any of the clauses; M/s. San Vij Systems is a rival of O.P. in business. Complainant has colluded with that Company to make illegal gains; There are vast differences between IR Cannon printer & IR 200 machines. The body of the machine is made of fiber plastic; name of the model is prominently mentioned in the front side of the machine. IR 200 Model takes only 20 Copies per minute whereas IR 400  takes 40 copies per minute. Automatic document feeder is different in both the models. In the panel board if service code is pressed it display that machine IR 400. Where as  in IR 200 no such facilities;  on the Back side door of the machine model No. IR 400 is printed. Hence allegation that model number is affixed with a sticker is baseless and false. Among other grounds O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.       In order to substantiate the complaint averments.   Complainant filed her affidavit evidence  & also filed two witnesses affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary, M/s. San Vij systems, Sri Rampuram, Bangalore and G.Ashwath kumar, Manager, Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram, Bangalore as Cw-2 and Cw-3. and produced copy of the invoice proforma dated 29-3-2007, Copy of D.D. for Rs. 74,880/-, Certificate issued by San-Vij-Systems, Postal receipts and RPAD card, photographs, legal notice, and reply notice. O.P. filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the invoice dated:28/4/2007, service reports, letter of offer of maintenance contract, postal receipt from VAT 100,  O.P. served the interrogatories to complainant and her witness i.e. Mr.G.Aswathkumar, Bank Manager and Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary. Complainant and Bank manager answered the interrogatories but Cw-2 Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary has failed to answer  to the interrogatories submitted by O.P.  Further Complainant served interrogatories to O.P. O.P. replied to the same. Both complainant and O.P. submitted written arguments. Complainant filed application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to examine the Cannon Printer.   Application allowed. Complainant filed memo stating S.Phalanethra, Commissioner, has left the job. Complainant again filed another application seeking appointment of ‘Mr.Yogesh Agarwal’ as technical expert to examine the printer. Application allowed. Commissioner Warrant issued. Again complainant filed memo stating Mr.Yogesh agarwal not interested in investigation work. Prayed to post the matters for orders. Complainant and O.P. filed written arguments. Taken as arguments heard from both the parties.

 

6.       In view of the above said facts the points now that arises for our consideration in these complaints are as under:

 

 

Point No.2:  If so, whether the complainant is entitled

Point No.3:  To what order ?

 

7.       We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on :

 

 

 

8.       At the out set it is not in dispute that on 29/3/2007 Complainant purchased  Cannon Printer from O.P. who is a dealer of photo copier machines to earn her livelihood. The proforma invoice issued by O.P. is produced. Complainant paid Rs.74,880/- to O.P. including 4% VAT by availing loan from Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that complainant used the said printer and is using till date. Now the grievance of the complainant is O.P. has supplied. GP 200 make Cannon instead of IR 400 Cannon printer. Complainant came to know about this fact only when she engaged another service agency since O.P. was not available for giving service. Due to urgency on 21/7/2008. Complainant contacted M/s. SAN VIJ SYSTEMS. No.68, Ist main, MKK Road, Devaiah park, Bangalore-21 for servicing of the said printer. The said agent informed the complainant that the machine is of model GP-200 make Cannon and not of a model IR 400 Cannon printer. Complainant requested O.P. to replace the said printer. Inspite of repeated requests and service of legal notice O.P. gave untenable reply. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against O.P. Under the circumstances she  approached this forum for the necessary reliefs.

9.       As against the case of the Complainant the defence of the O.P. is  that  IR 400 Cannon Printer is supplied to O.P. since warranty period is over. O.P. is not bound by the clauses. Complainant after satisfied with demonstration purchased the printer. Complainant used the printer  for more than one year. O.P. has offered service on 19-6-2007 and 23-6-2007 and also furnished the report to the complainant. When O.P. requested the complaint to enter into annual maintenance contract on 1/8/2007 for a period of one year. Complainant filed this complainant to gain wrongfully and colluded with M/s. SAN VIJ SYSTEMS who is rival of O.P. in business. There are vast differences between IR 400 Cannon Printer and IR 200 machines. Hence the Complainant’s allegation is baseless and false. There is some force in the say of the O.P.

 

10.        It is contended by the complainant that M/s. SAN VIJ Systems authorized signatory  issued certificate stating machine is  of GP 200 make Cannon. In support of the same. Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary also filed affidavit stating the said copier machine is not a model IR 400 Cannon printer and it is a model GP-200 make Cannon copier machine, photos are produced by the Complainant. But Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary  who has filed witness affidavit has failed to answer to the interrogatories supplied by O.P. Reasons are not known. When witness fails to tender himself for cross examination or fails to answer to the interrogatories credibility of the witness evidence is doubtful. Hence no reliance can be placed upon the evidence and certificate issued by CW-2, Sanjeev Chowdhary. Complainant has sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to examine and verify the printer. Twice Commissioner is appointed. Commissioner warrant issued, but complainant failed get the report from the commissioner. Complainant failed to establish the fact that the Cannon printer supplied by O.P. is of model GP 200 Cannon and not IR 400 Cannon, by producing the expert report/opinion. In the absence of evidence and report we are unable to come to the conclusion that the printer supplied by O.P. is of model GP 200 Cannon. Hence we are of the considered view that complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service against O.P. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

 

is  dismissed. Considering   the nature of

dispute no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

 

 

4.       On appearance O.P. filed the version mainly contending that complainant who is running a Travel Agency by name. R.R. Travels and a STD booth approached O.P. to buy a Cannon printer and copier Machine and stated that her requirement was about 40 copies per minute and wanted automatic document feeder facilities and automatic back to back unlimited copies facilities; After full demonstration Complainant agreed to purchase a model IR 400 printer of Cannon make.  After convinced of the of the function of the machine complainant placed an order for IR 400 Cannon  printer and accessories; warranty of the machine is 50,000/- copies or 3 months which ever is earlier. After installation on 29/5/2007, on19/6/2007 and on 23/6/2007 O.P. visited and gave the service Copy of the service report is given to the complainant. Copy of the report is produced. On 1/8/2007 O.P. requested the complainant to accept the annual maintenance contract for a period of one year at a cost Rs.7000 p.a. Complainant rejected the offer and replied that machine is working fine. Complainant has availed bank loan. The bank official verified and reported to the bank about the installation. Since warranty period of 3 months is over O.P. is not bound by any of the clauses; M/s. San Vij Systems is a rival of O.P. in business. Complainant has colluded with that Company to make illegal gains; There are vast differences between IR Cannon printer & IR 200 machines. The body of the machine is made of fiber plastic; name of the model is prominently mentioned in the front side of the machine. IR 200 Model takes only 20 Copies per minute whereas IR 400  takes 40 copies per minute. Automatic document feeder is different in both the models. In the panel board if service code is pressed it display that machine IR 400. Where as  in IR 200 no such facilities;  on the Back side door of the machine model No. IR 400 is printed. Hence allegation that model number is affixed with a sticker is baseless and false. Among other grounds O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.       In order to substantiate the complaint averments.   Complainant filed her affidavit evidence  & also filed two witnesses affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary, M/s. San Vij systems, Sri Rampuram, Bangalore and G.Ashwath kumar, Manager, Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram, Bangalore as Cw-2 and Cw-3. and produced copy of the invoice proforma dated 29-3-2007, Copy of D.D. for Rs. 74,880/-, Certificate issued by San-Vij-Systems, Postal receipts and RPAD card, photographs, legal notice, and reply notice. O.P. filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the invoice dated:28/4/2007, service reports, letter of offer of maintenance contract, postal receipt from VAT 100,  O.P. served the interrogatories to complainant and her witness i.e. Mr.G.Aswathkumar, Bank Manager and Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary. Complainant and Bank manager answered the interrogatories but Cw-2 Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary has failed to answer  to the interrogatories submitted by O.P.  Further Complainant served interrogatories to O.P. O.P. replied to the same. Both complainant and O.P. submitted written arguments. Complainant filed application seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to examine the Cannon Printer.   Application allowed. Complainant filed memo stating S.Phalanethra, Commissioner, has left the job. Complainant again filed another application seeking appointment of ‘Mr.Yogesh Agarwal’ as technical expert to examine the printer. Application allowed. Commissioner Warrant issued. Again complainant filed memo stating Mr.Yogesh agarwal not interested in investigation work. Prayed to post the matters for orders. Complainant and O.P. filed written arguments. Taken as arguments heard from both the parties.

 

6.       In view of the above said facts the points now that arises for our consideration in these complaints are as under:

 

 

Point No.2:  If so, whether the complainant is entitled

Point No.3:  To what order ?

 

7.       We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on :

 

 

 

8.       At the out set it is not in dispute that on 29/3/2007 Complainant purchased  Cannon Printer from O.P. who is a dealer of photo copier machines to earn her livelihood. The proforma invoice issued by O.P. is produced. Complainant paid Rs.74,880/- to O.P. including 4% VAT by availing loan from Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that complainant used the said printer and is using till date. Now the grievance of the complainant is O.P. has supplied. GP 200 make Cannon instead of IR 400 Cannon printer. Complainant came to know about this fact only when she engaged another service agency since O.P. was not available for giving service. Due to urgency on 21/7/2008. Complainant contacted M/s. SAN VIJ SYSTEMS. No.68, Ist main, MKK Road, Devaiah park, Bangalore-21 for servicing of the said printer. The said agent informed the complainant that the machine is of model GP-200 make Cannon and not of a model IR 400 Cannon printer. Complainant requested O.P. to replace the said printer. Inspite of repeated requests and service of legal notice O.P. gave untenable reply. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against O.P. Under the circumstances she  approached this forum for the necessary reliefs.

9.       As against the case of the Complainant the defence of the O.P. is  that  IR 400 Cannon Printer is supplied to O.P. since warranty period is over. O.P. is not bound by the clauses. Complainant after satisfied with demonstration purchased the printer. Complainant used the printer  for more than one year. O.P. has offered service on 19-6-2007 and 23-6-2007 and also furnished the report to the complainant. When O.P. requested the complaint to enter into annual maintenance contract on 1/8/2007 for a period of one year. Complainant filed this complainant to gain wrongfully and colluded with M/s. SAN VIJ SYSTEMS who is rival of O.P. in business. There are vast differences between IR 400 Cannon Printer and IR 200 machines. Hence the Complainant’s allegation is baseless and false. There is some force in the say of the O.P.

 

10.        It is contended by the complainant that M/s. SAN VIJ Systems authorized signatory  issued certificate stating machine is  of GP 200 make Cannon. In support of the same. Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary also filed affidavit stating the said copier machine is not a model IR 400 Cannon printer and it is a model GP-200 make Cannon copier machine, photos are produced by the Complainant. But Mr. Sanjeev Chowdhary  who has filed witness affidavit has failed to answer to the interrogatories supplied by O.P. Reasons are not known. When witness fails to tender himself for cross examination or fails to answer to the interrogatories credibility of the witness evidence is doubtful. Hence no reliance can be placed upon the evidence and certificate issued by CW-2, Sanjeev Chowdhary. Complainant has sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to examine and verify the printer. Twice Commissioner is appointed. Commissioner warrant issued, but complainant failed get the report from the commissioner. Complainant failed to establish the fact that the Cannon printer supplied by O.P. is of model GP 200 Cannon and not IR 400 Cannon, by producing the expert report/opinion. In the absence of evidence and report we are unable to come to the conclusion that the printer supplied by O.P. is of model GP 200 Cannon. Hence we are of the considered view that complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service against O.P. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

 

is  dismissed. Considering   the nature of

dispute no order as to costs.