Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President; Mr. Sada Nand
& Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
ALPHA DRUG INDIA LTD.—Complainant
versus
H.C.L. LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 423 of 1993—Decided on 27.8.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Bhupinder Kakar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.P. Goyal, Advocate
The complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in rendering periodical service, but replacement of the machine was not considered due to the time elapsed since the purchase.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Photocopier Installation and Maintenance - The court found that the photocopier remained non-functional or malfunctioned on numerous occasions, and the service provided by the respondent was deficient. The complainant was awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 with interest for the deficiency in rendering periodical service.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents supplied and installed a photocopier at the complainant's premises. The complainant alleged that the photocopier remained non-functional or malfunctioned on several occasions, and the service provided was deficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there had been breakdowns in the performance of the photocopier and the service rendered was deficient. The court held that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,000 with interest for the deficiency in rendering periodical service.
Issues: Alleged deficiency in the photocopier and the service provided by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the deficiency in rendering periodical service, but it was not considered a fit case for replacement of the machine due to the time elapsed since the purchase.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 13,000 with interest for the deficiency in rendering periodical service.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—The respondents supplied and installed a photocopier at the premises of the complainant on 29.6.89. Its total price was Rs. 92,995/-. Thereafter the complainant had been engaging the respondents for its maintenance from year to year under the agreements. It has been alleged that the photocopier remained non-functional/mal-functional at numerous occasions in August, October, ‘91, May, July, October and November, ‘92 described in Paras 14, 15 and 20 of the complaint. The complainant has alleged deficiency in the machines and also in the service which was agreed to by the respondent. The refund of the entire price of Rs. 92,995/- together with the interest @ 18%, in the alternative a new copier together with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of deficiency has been claimed.
2. The respondents have filed a reply wherein it has been averred that whenever required they had been visiting the complainant and the occasional delay in providing service had been because the machine was shifted from Chandigarh to Lalru a near-by station.
3. On behalf of the respondents its Sale Manager Shri M.S. Sidhu filed an affidavit dated 18.4.95 but despite several adjournments neither Shri Sidhu nor Shri A. Khanna who filed affidavits on behalf of the respondents came forward for the purpose of cross-examination. It may be useful to give here non-functional period from Annexures A-9 and A-6 and the relevant part thereof is as under:
4.4.91 to 17.4.91 14 days
7.6.91 to 19.6.91 13 days
4.7.91 to 9.7.91 6 days
27.7.91 to 24.8.91 29 days
Total : 62 days
Month Period Days Total Days Break-down Time Amount (Rs)
Oct. ‘92 16.10.92 to 23.10.92 8 16 8x150 1,200/-
Nov. ‘92 3.11.92 to 30.11.92 28 30 2x150 300/-
Dec. ‘92 1.12.92 to 3.12.92 3 3 7x150 ––
14.12.92 to 31.12.92 18 27 9x150 1,350/-
Jan. ‘93 1.1.93 to 9.1.93 9 31 22x150 3,300/-
66 107 41 6,250/-
4. After perusal of the terms and conditions and the details of performance given in Annexures A-6 & A-9 has remained un-rebutted. We are satisfied that there had been break downs and neither the machine worked satisfactorily and at the same time the service rendered was also deficient.
5. Since in this case the purchase was made long ago on 29.6.89 and the complaint was instituted on 27.2.93, it cannot be considered a fit case for replacement of the machine. However, as regards deficiency in rendering periodical service after perusal of the tables referred to above it is held that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,000/- which shall be payable by the respondents together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the complaint till realisation.
6. Announced. The orders be communicated to the parties free of charges.
Complaint allowed.
