KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOS.706/12 & 244/14

       JUDGMENT DATED:28.11.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

APPEAL NO.706/12

Premier Canon Corporate Partern,

Marikar (Motors)Ltd.,

Musaliyar Buildings,                                                          : APPELLANT

Chinnakkada, Kollam.

(By Adv: Sri.G.S. Kalkura)

            Vs.

1. Vijayan,

Proprietor, M/s Kripa Fancy,

Near High School Junction,

Venchempu.P.O, Punalur,

Kollam.

(By Adv: Sri.S.Reghukumar)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

Addl. 2^nd Respondent

1. M/s Canon India Private Limited,

2^nd floor Tower A & B,

Cyber Greens, DLF, Phase III,

Gurgaon.

(By Adv: Sri.Jaideep G Nair)

APPEAL NO. 244/14

1. M/s Canon India Private Limited,

Having its Corporate office at:                                        : APPELLANT

7^th  floor, Tower  B, Bldg # 5,

DLF Epitome, DLF Phase III,

Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.

And having its Regd. Office at:

D-179, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020.

(By Adv: Sri.Jaideep G Nair)

            Vs.

1. Vijayan,

Proprietor, M/s Kripa Fancy,

Near High School Junction,

Venchempu.P.O, Punalur,

Kollam.

1. Marikar (Motors)Ltd., P.B.No.9,

Marikar Buildings, M.G.Road, TVPM.                            : RESPONDENTS

(By Adv: Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

1. Premier Canon Corporate Partern,

Marikar (Motors)Ltd.,

Musaliyar Buildings,                                                         

Chinnakkada, Kollam.

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

Both these appeals arise out of the order of the CDRF, Kollam in CC.460/06 dated, June 09, 2012.  Appeal.706/12 is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Appeal 244/14 is filed by the 3^rd opposite party.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant purchased a photocopying machine manufactured by 3^rd opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.78,548.50 on February 27, 2006.  The Service Engineer of the opposite party installed the machine.  After five months main control board of the machine became defective.  The 1^st opposite party informed him that they are ready to replace the main control board only on condition that complainant given 30 paise per copy including the copy already taken, as the defect occurred after the warranty period.  The warranty period was one year and therefore they are bound to cure the defect free of cost.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming refund of the price of the photocopying machine.

3.      First opposite party is the authorized dealer of the photocopy machine of the 3^rd opposite party, M/s Canon India Private Limited.  Second opposite party is the 1^st opposite party’s Kollam Division.  The sale of the photocopy machine to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party is admitted.  The first and second opposite party in their version contended that the warranty period was three months and not one year as alleged by the complainant and as the defect occurred beyond the warranty period complainant has to bear the expense of replacing the main control board and that therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Third opposite party in its version contended that the defect alleged was not a manufacturing defect.

5.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on his side.  On the side of the opposite party DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 was marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the price of the photocopy machine of Rs.85,017.20 with interest and a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have challenged the said order in Appeal.706/12 while 3^rd opposite party filed the Appeal.244/14.

6.      Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the complainant.

7.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

8.      It is not disputed that complainant had purchased photocopy machine having specification IR-2016 Digital Printer from the 2^nd opposite party and that after five months the main control board of the photocopy machine became defective.  According to the complainant since warranty was of one year the opposite parties are bound to replace the main control board free of cost.  On the other hand opposite parties contended that warranty period was only for three months from the date of installation and that therefore the main control board can be replaced at the expense of the complainant.  Ext.P2 is the installation report of Mr.Sabu, Service Engineer of opposite parties 1 and 2.  On the reverse of Ext.P2 the Engineer has ticked warranty condition wherein the warranty period was for one year for the machine and three months for the accessories.  Ext.D1 is the same as Ext.P2 but on the reverse of Ext.D1 the Service Engineer has ticked the warranty condition of three months only.  In this circumstance the opposite parties should have examined the said Mr.Sabu to prove Ext.D1 which they did not do.  Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in accepting Ext.P2 has correct and holding that the defect of the machine occurred during the warranty period.  The Forum is also justified in directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the machine Rs.85,017.20 and awarding compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

In the result we find no merit in both these appeals and both these appeals are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.