VIJAY NARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. CHOWGULE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complainant Shri Vijay Narayan Agrawal, now Petitioner, had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). According to the Complainant he had purchased one Canon N.P. 150 Photo copier machine from the Respondent, Opposite Party, M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd.. (for short "the Company") for Rs. 91,000/- and the machine was installed at his premises on 12.7.1988. From the very beginning there was problem of getting consumable items. A part of the machine called drum also became defective before the expiry of the guarantee period. Consumable items and spare parts were not supplied by the Opposite Party despite correspondence and personal visits to Bombay and Calcutta and the photo copier machine was lying idle for more than a year. On 23.9.1990 the Complainant purchased for the Company another photo copier machine-Canon N.P. 271 which was installed in his premises on 27.9.1990. Thereafter the Complainant requested the Head Office of the Company as well as their local representative that the amount paid for Canon N.P. 150 be adjusted towards the price of the Canon N.P. 271 as the earlier machine involved problems from the very beginning in respect of consumable items, materials and spare parts. The Claimant also claimed Rs. 150/- per day with interest as financial loss as he was paying interest to the Punjab National Bank from whom he has taken financial aid for purchasing both photocopier machines.

(2.) THE Opposite Party i.e. the Company filed a counter alleging that the photocopier earlier supplied to the Complainant was not defective. On 27th July, 1988 the Complainant had requested for supply of Toner and some spare parts. The Service Engineer of the Company visited the Complainant and rendered necessary maintenance services. By that time a total number of 5,617 copies had been taken out. Again on 1.9.1988 the Service Engineer of the Company visited the Complainant and rendered necessary service and according to the meter-reading a total number of 13,600 copies had been taken out. On 14.9.1988 the Engineer of the Company again visited the Complainant and as per service report recorded by him and duly certified by the Complainant a total number of 17,300 copies had been taken out from the photocopier Canon N.P. 150. There was superficial mark on the drums which had been removed by the said Engineer to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Company had fully discharged its warrants obligation and the operational capacity of the drum was bout 10,000 copies for that model. As per the warranty card, the warranty was only for three months or till 20000 copies were taken out whichever was earlier. The Complainant was advised to enter into a regular maintenance contract without which the machine could not be property maintained but this was not acceptable to the Complainant. The Company had strong reasons to believe that the machine was being maintained by unqualified and unauthorised mechanics coupled with improper use of sub-standard locally available toners, spare parts etc. which would render such sensitive electronic machine inoperative. The Company, therefore, submitted that the Complainant could not complain about the failure to provide proper maintenance service.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by that order the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh. It upheld the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The Complainant has now come before us by way of this Revision Petition.