Decided on March 09,1993



A.N. Varma, Chairman - (1.) THIS is an application for compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act"). As the respondent failed to appear in spite of due service of notice, the case proceeded ex parte. In support of his application, the applicant has filed an elaborate affidavit supported by all the relevant documents in proof of his claim.
(2.) On March 2, 1990, the applicant, which is a Photostat and Type Centre at Kherli (Alwar), Rajasthan, purchased from Kores India Limited an automatic plain paper copier machine for the sum of Rs. 43,100 which was duly paid by the applicant. The bill and receipt for the payment of the amount have been annexed to the affidavit as exhibits CW-1/1 and CW-1/2. The machine carried a warranty for a period of six months. Exhibit CW-1/3 is the warranty card. In the warranty card, March 2, 1990, is mentioned as the date of installation of the machine. Six months period would, therefore, run from this date. Throughout the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chander, the proprietor of the applicant concern, runs a sad tale of the photo-copier in question giving endless trouble right from the beginning. In fact, if the proprietor of the concern is to be believed-and we see no ground why he should not--it seems apparent that the machine did not function properly, much less smoothly, for more than three days at a stretch, Every time the applicant lodged a complaint with the respondent, the latter would allow a gap of several weeks to elapse before its service engineer or mechanic would condescend to attend to the fault. And again not more than three days would elapse before the machine would again go out of commission. The proprietor would make a fervent request to the respondent to send its service engineer to attend to the fault thoroughly so that the problem does not recur within the next few days at least. The appeals would fall on deaf ears. The service engineer would turn up several weeks thereafter to attend to the fault. He would, however, appear to make some temporary repairs which would not last more than three days.
(3.) THE proprietor would specifically point out all this on the service card itself after the so-called repairs were done by the service engineer. THE proprietor would note down on the service card brought by the service engineer that the machine be reinspected after three days as the machine does not function for more than three days at a stretch.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.