- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'district Forum' for short) in Complaint Case No.257/98 whereby the complaint was allowed against opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
(2.) FACTS not presently in dispute are that the appellant is the manufacturer of the photocopier purchased by the complainant on 20.4.1996 under Pradhan Mantri Employment Scheme, after obtaining finance of Rs.95,000/ - from the opposite party No.3.
(3.) BRIEF facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a photocopy machine on 20.4.1996 under Pradhan Mantri Employment Scheme, after obtaining finance of Rs.95,000/ - from the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2/appellant is the manufacturer of the said machine. As per the complainant the machine was defective. Stabiliser of the said machine developed defect on 25.4.1996. On complaint the opposite party No.1 assured that they will replace the stabilizer within two three days but did not replace the same for months. Nearly after about seven months the said opposite party demanded Rs.9,000/ - for replacing the stabilizer. The complainant had however paid Rs.4,500/ - but despite replacement of stabilizer the machine did not function properly. The opposite party told that toner has developed defects. Thereafter it was told that the drum had developed defects and the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/ - from the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/ - and promised to pay the remaining amount afterwards but due to non -availability of relevant parts the machine could not be repaired. It is further averred that the said machine is lying in defective condition since 28.9.1996. The complainant had claimed refund of price from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As the machine was purchased after obtaining finance from the opposite party No.3, the complainant had also prayed for staying the recovery of loan by the opposite party No.3, Bank. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 had averred in reply that during warranty period they had provided due service to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has been filed after the period of warranty hence the same is not maintainable. It was further averred that instead of personally working on the machine the complainant used to let out the machine to others with the intention of earning profit, hence the complainant is not the consumer within definition given in the Act. It was also averred that the persons who operated the machine had no experience regarding the machine and further that the maintenance was not proper and all this resulted in technical problems in the machine. It was also averred in reply that at the time of purchase the complainant was told that in case of any technical defect in the machine, she will inform the manufacturer and will use only the material/parts manufactured by the company whereas the complainant instead of using material/parts manufactured by the company has used the material manufactured by other companies. It was further averred that no expert report regarding manufacturing defects in the machine has been filed. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.;