Decided on July 24,2007

Modi Xerox Ltd And Ors Appellant
Manoj Kumar Srivastava Respondents


- (1.) HEARD Mr. S.C. Dhasmana learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent. The first point which was raised on behalf of the respondent relates to the time limitation prescribed for filing an appeal. As supplemented further, this appeal was termed to be as time barred having been filed more than three months after. Learned Counsel for the appellant with reference to the affidavit of Sri Prabhat Sharma, General Manager, Modi Xerox Limited, has pointed out that though the complaint was contested yet it was decided ex parte on 20th January, 1998 and the information regarding the ex parte judgment was received by the company on 23rd March, 1998. It was thereafter that the process of applying for copy of the judgment and seeking permission from the headquarters and soliciting legal opinion started. After completing all the formalities the appeal was filed on 27th May, 1998. The description of the entire process is clearly laid down in the affidavit of Sri Prabhat Sharma. It was a usual bureaucratic red tapism on account of which the delay had occurred but since the process of communication had taken place between long distances, we find that delay has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, it is condoned.
(2.) ADVERTING to the merit of the appeal, it may be mentioned that the Xerox Machine was purchased by Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava from the appellant company on 14.2.1994 on cash down payment of Rs. 68,637 which was installed at the complainant's premises on 19.2.1994. After warranty period of 90 days a service contract was entered into for a period of one year and after the expiry of the said period another service contract for one year was executed. Some four months after the expiry of second year of service contract the complaint was filed with the allegation that the photocopier machine was not functioning satisfactorily.
(3.) M /s. Modi Xerox resisted the complaint with the averments that satisfactory service had been provided to the complainant during the period of two years service contract. No specific defect was pointed out by the complainant and the complaint was filed long after the period of service had expired. It was further submitted that no liability could be fastened upon M/s. Modi Xerox for any defect which might have developed at the time when there was no service contract. Having scrutinized the respective versions of the two parties, the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur, allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 15,000 as damages for the inconvenience which was experienced by the complainant for deficiency in service. The appellant company was also directed to rectify the defect.;

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