BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 12th July 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 24 / 2016
District Court, Kadapa Rep. by
M. Venkata Rangaiah, S/o M.A. Krishna,
57 years, Superintendent, Copyist Section,
District Court, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Xerox India Ltd., 6-3-1109, Navabharat Chambers,
Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by
Technical Support Specialist.
2. Technical Support Specialist (AP), Xerox India Ltd.,
6-3-1109, Navabharat Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
3. Location Service Head (AP), Xerox India Ltd.,
6-3-1109, Navabharat Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
4. Regional Commercial Coordinator (South), Xerox India Ltd.,
6-3-1109, Navabharat Chambers, Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
5. Sivanta Enterprises, #40/382-4, 2nd floor, Chintu Complex,
Park Road, Kurnool. ………Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 29-6-2016 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R4 and R5 called absent and set exparte on 16-5-2016 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh under ROC No. 722/2011-D1 (2), dt. 24-3-2011 was pleased to permit the District Judge, Kadapa to purchase four photocopier machines of the capacity of 45 cpm and photocopier machines of the capacity of 16 cpm of the maker of Xerox world center.
3. It is submitted that the R12 is the maker and marketer of work center and R2 to 4 are the employees of R1 dealing with the photocopier machines. The R5 (previously the name of the R5 was NS Enterprises) is the authorized dealer of for the R1 company. As per proceedings of the Dist. Judge, Kadapa in Dis. No. 2178, dt. 31-3-2011 and in accordance with the permission granted by the Hon’ble High Court, four 45 cpm photocopier machines and seven 16 cpm photocopier machines were purchased from R1 supplied by R5 out of the four 45 cpm photocopier machines, one machine was installed in the Central Copyist section, District Court, Kadapa and other three photocopier machines were installed in the courts of Senior Civil Judges, Rayachoty, Rajampet and Proddatur respectively. The seven photocopier machines of 16 cpm were installed in the courts of Junior Civil Judge at Badvel, Nandalur, Lakkireddypalli, Kamalapuram, Pulivendula, Sidhout and Jammalamadugu. All the above said photocopier machines were installed in the respective courts during the month of March 2011.
4. It is further submitted that the warranty period for the photocopier machines referred to above is one year. As such, after expiry of warrant period, the R1 company came forward to enter into annual maintenance contract. Accordingly, the claimant office has entered into annual maintenance contract with R1 company for the periods 2013-14, 2014-15 by paying the amount at the rate Rs. 55,000/- + 12.36% of service tax for each of the photocopier machine. The annual maintenance contract for the period 2014-15 ended by 31-3-2015.
5. It is further submitted that R1 on previous occasion’s suo motto came forward to enter into annual maintenance contract, after 31-3-2015 did not come forward to enter into annual maintenance contract, though the concerned personnel of claimant office contacted R2 to come and enter into annual maintenance contract, there is no response from R2. At the time of supply of above referred photocopier machines it was informed by the respondent company that one service provider is residing at Kadapa and he will be available locally. The R2 whenever contacted he used to reply that annual maintenance contract was sent to the service provider at Kadeapa and the service provider in turn used to say that the R2 did not send a annual maintenance contract. But strangely the R5 on its own motion has submitted annual maintenance contract to the claimant office though there is no request from the office. the agreement for the photocopier machines is only with R1 company but not with R5 who is an authorized dealer of R1.
6. It is submitted that since August 2015 the photocopier machine installed at Kadapa is not working. Further the other photocopier machine installed at Proddatur, Rayachoty and Rajampet are not working. Even though the service provider attended on to the photocopier machines on the call made by the claimant office, he could not above to get the photocopier machines fully working condition. Since the date of installation, the above said photocopier machines are not working properly and frequently giving troubles. The service provider did not evidence any interest in getting the machines fully functional. It is submitted that in response to this office letter in Dis. No. 6734, dt. 10-9-2014 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to request in ROC No. 976/2014-D1 (2) dt. 16-12-2014 the claimant office to obtain the life time of the photocopier machines. The R2 in his letter dt. 5-1-2015 informed that the life time of photocopier machine at Kadapa is for 5 years or extracting of 40 lakhs copies whichever is earlier and with regard to photocopier machine installed at Proddatur, Rayachoty and Rajampet is concerned the opinion of the R2 is five years or extracting of 30 lakhs copies whichever is earlier. The capacity and nature of photocopier machines supplied and installed at Kadapa, Rajampet, Proddatur and Rayachoty are one and the same. But R2 has given different versions regarding the life time of the said machines.
7. It is submitted that due to the nonfunctioning of the photocopier machine installed at Kadapa, Rayachoty, Rajampet and Proddatur much inconvenience is being faced by the both advocates and litigant public in getting the Photostat copies of the documents required by them, in time. Similarly the staff of copyist establishment also faced much difficulty in getting the copy applications ready. Therefore, the claimant office issued show cause notice to the R1 company on 16-2-2016 calling upon them to explain on or before 29-2-2016 as to why action cannot be taken against them and also by filing criminal Complaint before Dist. Consumer forum for the lapses. The company addressed a letter dt. 25-2-2016 received by the claimant office on 4-3-2016 in the said letter it is stated that the machine best in class and it has been functioning since the date of installation. Further it is contended in the said letter that during the contract period 11 site visits were made when needed. This admission by R1 company itself shows that the machines have not worked properly and on average for every two or three months the machines have developed troubles, which made the officials of the respondent company to make site visit for 11 times. It may be a fact that the service provider might have visited the machine for 11 times or so, but there is no fruitful result in the visit of service provider, because of the fact that at no point of time during the visits, the service provider made the machine fit for running. On the other hand he was not able to detect the exact trouble in the machine.
8. It is submitted that the above said facts will show that the photocopier machines supplied to the claimant unit are not of good standard and they are appearing to be of sub standard. As such the company has not evinced any interest in entering into the annual maintenance contract with the claimant office. Further as per the letter given by the respondent company the life time is 5 years or extracting of 40 lakhs and 30 lakhs copies respectively. But from the date of installation of the machine only 4 lakhs and odd Photostat copies alone were extracted. The life time of five years will expire by June 2016. Therefore, the photocopier copies supplied by R1 are of sub standard capacity and the R2 to R4 did not give the real working condition of the photocopier machine and gave a different version as stated supra.
9. It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased (a) to allow the complaint directing the respondent Company to replace the photocopier machines supplied by them with new machines, (b) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss sustained by the claimant office during the period when the machines were not functioning, (c) costs of the complaint and (d) and other reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
10. Counter filed by R1 & R2 and the same was adopted by R3 and R4. Each and every averments made by the answering respondents are wrong and denied except those which are admitted expressly by them. The averments, which are not admitted specifically, may be deemed to have been denied by the answering Respondents. Xerox India limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act 1956 having its office at 5th & 6th floor, Block one, Vitika Business park, sector 49, sohna road, Gurgaon-122018, Haryana, India.
11. The contents of paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the corresponding complaint are a matter of record and therefore, does not merit any response. Anything stated contrary to the record is hereby denied. The contents of paragraph 4 of the complaint under reply are a matter of record and hence does not merit a response.
12. The contents of paragraph 5 of the corresponding complaint are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the answering R2 upon being contacted by the Complainant failed to respond to the same. The Complainant shall be put to strict proof of the averment made by him. The contents of paragraph 6 of the corresponding complaint are strenuously denied and vehemently opposed. It is most specifically denied that since the time of installation, the photocopier machine were not working properly and giving frequent troubles. The Complainant herein is making bald averments without corroborating it with any evidence. The contents of the paragraphs of the preliminary objections and submissions are reiterated and reaffirmed and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity. Nonetheless, the Complainant shall be put to strict proof of the averment made by him.
13. The contents of paragraph 7 and 8 of the complaint under reply are admitted only to the extent that the answering R2 vide letter dt. 5-1-2015 had informed the rated life of the photocopier machines. The contents of paragraphs of the preliminary objection and submission is reiterated, reaffirmed and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is reiterated that the variation with regard to the life of the machines was due to sheer clerical inadvertence. However, this clerical error has no bearing on the claims made by the Complainant for replacement of the machine.
14. The contents of paragraph 9 of the complaint are admitted only to the extent that the Complainant had issued a show cause notice to the answering respondent and the same was duly replied by the answering respondent vide letter dt. 25-2-2016. It is further admitted that the machine is the best in class and is functioning since the date of installation. The remaining part of the paragraph under reply is wrong and denied. The Complainant shall be put to strict proof of the averment made by him. The contents of paragraph 10 of the corresponding complaint are stoutly denied and vehemently opposed. It is specifically denied that the photocopier machines are not of good standard and that they are sub standard. The Complainant shall be put to strict proof of the averment made by him. It is most respectfully submitted that since the Complainant is making such a serious averment against the answering respondents, they ought to adduce material evidence to support the said averments. The Complainant is trying to tarnish the impeccable reputation of Xerox India Ltd., by making absolutely baseless allegations against their products of course, no court of law can accept these averments in case there is no evidence in support thereof.
15. The contents of paragraph 11 & 12 of the corresponding complaint are wrong and denied. It is denied that there subsists any cause of action against the answering respondent. It is reiterated that necessary services were always provided to the machines under dispute. Since the machine are not covered under SSMA and also because the repairs had to had to be made on consumable parts, a repair estimate was shared with the Complainant. However, the Complainant did not approve the estimate and insisted on free of cost repair due to which the repairs could not be carried out. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
16. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
17. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf Respondents Ex. B1 to B5 documents were marked.
18. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear from Exs. A1, A2 and A3 that the Complainant had purchased machines from R1. As per Ex. B2 purchase order was placed on 31-3-2011. Ex. B3 also clear that the service maintenance agreement between the Complainant and Respondents from 01-4-2014 to 31-3-2015. Ex. A5 and A6 clearly show that the machines were supplied to Rajampet, Rayachoty also. The R1 supplied four machines i.e. 1 at Kadapa, 2 at Rayachoty, 3 at Rajampet and 4 at Proddatur. Ex. A7 clearly shows that the Complainant had issued notice about troubles of the machines. Ex. B5 clearly proves that the Respondent had attended 12 times and repaired the same at District Court, Kadapa in four years. As per Respondents version the life time of the machines are five years or 40 lakhs copies, 30 lakhs copies whichever is earlier. But within four years only upto 3,97,000 copies only the machines had troubled so many times and the Respondents attended 12 times and repaired the machine at Dist. Court i.e. Complainant. It clearly proves that there is defect in the machine. The machine got troubled from frequently in every four or five months the Respondents visited and repaired the machine. As per version of the Respondents itself the service provider available at Kadapa attended and repaired the machine whenever required but he could not able to rectify the defects in the machine. So it was troubling from frequently as the Dist. Court had much work load. There was much inconvenience to officers, advocates and litigant public. So the Complainant is eligible or compensation as prayed by him and at the same time there is deficiency in service and defect in machine supplied by the Respondents.
19. Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable to replace the photocopier machines supplied to Kadapa, Rayachoty, Rajampet and Proddatur i.e. 445 cpm machines with new machines, pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards loss sustained by the claimant’s office for not functioning the machines, and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint within 60 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12th July 2016.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of proceedings of the Dist. Judge, Kadapa dt. 31-3-2011.
Ex. A2 P/c of annual maintenance contract entered by R1 company.
Ex. A3 P/c of Annual maintenance contract sent by R5.
Ex. A4 P/c of letter dt. 5-1-2014 addressed by the respondent company showing the life time of the machine.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter addressed to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet dt. 18-1-14.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter addressed to the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, dt. 18-1-14.
Ex. A7 P/c of notice issued by Dist. Judge, Kadapa dt. 12-2-2106 addressed to the respondent company and communicated in Dis. No. 1056, dt. 16-2-2016.
Ex. A8 P/c of reply given by the respondent company dt. 25-2-2016 received by this court on 4-3-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents.
Ex. B1 Original power of attorney deed dt. 20-5-2016.
Ex. B2 P/c of purchase order dt. 31-3-2011.
Ex. B3 Copy of SSMA spares and service maintenance agreement for the period 01-4-2014 to 31-3-2015.
Ex. B4 P/c of reply letter dt. 5-1-2014.
Ex. B5 P/c of service call notes 12 nos.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- District Court, Kadapa Rep. by M. Venkata Rangaiah, S/o M.A. Krishna, Superintendent, Copyist Section, District Court, Kadapa.
- Sri M. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R4.
- Sivanta Enterprises, #40/382-4, 2nd floor, Chintu Complex,
Park Road, Kurnool
B.V.P.
