STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/373/2017 Mohan H.S.

PRESENT ADDRESS - Managing Partner, Abhishek Enterprises, No.122, 1stFloor, 4th Cross, Lalbagh Road, K.S.Garden, Bangalore-27,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Fahmeeda Ruk Sayeeda PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Syed Yusuff, aged about 45 years, Shop Name Time Digita, No.647, 2nd A Cross, LB Shastri Nagar Main Road, HAL Post, Bangalore-560 017.,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 20/09/2025

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO.373/2017 Mohan H.S.

Managing Partner, Abhishek Enterprises, st No.122, 1 Floor, 4 th Cross, Lalbagh Road, K.S. Garden, …Appellant/s Bangalore-27 (By Shri/smt S.B. Totad, advocate)

V/s Fahmeeda Ruk Sayeeda W/o Syed Yusuff, Aged about 45 years, ….Respondent/s Shop Name Time Digita, nd No.647, 2 A Cross, LB Shastri Nagar Main Road, HAL Post, Bangalore-560 017.

(By Shri/smt Jose Sebastian, advocate )

O R D E R

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Opposite party in complaint No.2863/2014 preferred this appeal against nd the order passed by the Bengaluru Urban 2 Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shanthinagar, Bangalore which directed this appellant to refund the half of the machine purchase amount i.e. a sum of Rs.73,850/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

.

2. The learned advocate for appellant submits that, the complainant utilized the Xerox machine from the date of purchase i.e. on 21.11.2012 till the completion of the warranty period. The warranty period was provided for 90 days or 50000 copies. Subsequently, after lapse of 9 months having obtained copies of 50000 to 60000 successfully, he came up with a complaint with respect to the functioning of the machine wherein this appellant noted the mother board has to be replaced and demanded for payment of Rs.50,000/- for replacement of the mother board, but the complaint declined to pay said amount, instantly he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service stating they have sold defective Xerox machine to the complainant.

The District Commission without noticing the expiry of the warranty period and also successful printing of 50000 to 60000 copies, had directed this appellant to pay the 50% of the purchase amount, amounting to Rs.73,850/- along with Rs.5,000/- compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The complainant suppressed true facts and obtained order to gain wrongfully. The machine purchased by the complainant has provided service to the satisfaction of the complainant and after lapse of the warranty period itself, the mother board was failed and it requires of replacement. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.

Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that on 21.11.2012 the complainant has purchased Xerox Machine for their livelihood and at the time of purchase warranty for a period of 90 days was provided. We noted the complainant had intimated the problem in the Xerox Machine on 29.11.2013 whereas warranty period was expired on 20.02.2013. If the any repair required for the machine after the lapse of warranty period, the repair expenses/charges are payable by the complainant. Whereas in this case the complainant sought for refund of the entire amount paid towards the purchase of the Xerox Machine, the said claim is not justifiable. The District Commission made an