Date of Filing:23.03.2010 Date of Order: 01.09.2010 2 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 623 OF 2010 Krishnanlal Jain M/s. Vardhaman Enterprises No. 270/1, Ambika Building 9th Cross, New Byapanahalli Indiranagar Post, Bangalore 38 Complainant V/S The Manager Techno Consultancy Service No. G-11 and 12, Bridge Plaz Anand Rao Circle, S.C. Road Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 001 Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased photo copying machine from the opposite party on 21.05.2009 for Rs. 65,000/-. Opposite party failed in his part to deliver the said machine in a good condition. Since the installation, machine not functioned properly. Inspite of several attempts made by service persons the machine is not functioning. The complainant is permanent disabled person unfit to do hard work and tried to start self employment. Opposite party delivered a defective zerox machine and failed to satisfy the customers service, which clearly shows that there is a deficiency of service by the opposite party. Complainant has issued legal notice to opposite party to pay Rs. 65,000/- along with 18% interest p.a. and Rs. 25,000/- as loss. Opposite party has not complied the legal notice. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 65,000/- with interest and compensation. 2. The opposite parties filed defence version stating that the machine sold to the complainant is in a good working condition and does not have any problems. However, the opposite party is willing and ready to replace the complainants machine with a new one. 3. Both the parties have filed affidavit evidence. 4. Complainant has produced documents. Opposite party has not produced any document. 5. Arguments are heard. 6. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid by him? What order? 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased photo copy machine from the opposite party for Rs. 65,000/-. For that receipt dated 18.05.2009 is produced. Complainant has produced deal sheet of the opposite party dated 21.05.2009. The machine was installed on 21.05.2009. The complainant submitted that from the date of purchase the machine was not working in good condition and it was not functioning properly and he reported the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party sent persons for service and repair. Even after that also they failed to set right the problem of the machine. The complainant has produced two service reports. He has also paid Rs. 900/- as repair charges. Inspite of it the machine was not functioning properly. The complainant is a disabled person and he is a physically handicapped person. For the purpose of self-employment he has purchased the machine. But, unfortunately, the machine did not work properly and complainant suffered lot. The very purpose of purchasing machine had been defeated on account of defective machine. The complainant was not able to earn for his livelihood. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party calling upon the opposite party to refund the amount along with interest and compensation and there was no response from the opposite party to legal notice. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file complaint. The opposite party in the defence version submitted that it is ready and willing to replace the machine. But the complainant is not ready and willing to take the machine of the opposite party company since, the said product is not standard and the complainant has no faith in the product of opposite party. The complainant insisted for order of refund only. So in view of these facts it would be just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite party to refund Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant and take back the zerox machine supplied to the complainant. The complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party is not entitled to refuse to refund the amount because the machine is defective one and it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party company to take back defective machine and refund amount to the complainant. Complainant being a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the said Act being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers, the interest of the complainant shall have to be protected by passing orders for refund. The complainant has claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for loss, harassment and mental agony etc. but there is no proper proof to establish as to how the complainant has suffered mental agony and loss. Therefore, grant of compensation is not considered. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of refund. 9. The complainant after receipt of money shall have to give back the machine to the opposite party. 10. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 11. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
