Decided on September 14,2010

Simon K Mundappallil House Appellant
Rapheal Xavier Respondents


- (1.)APPELLANT is the complainant in OP No. 514/2003 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam The complaint stands dismissed.
(2.)IT is the case of the complainant that on 7.11.1998 he purchased a Canon NP 3225 (RC) photocopier with kit. The opposite party is the dealer/distributor of photocopier of different makes. The machine was taken delivery on 10.11.1998 on payment of sum of Rs. 1,07,000. The complainant was made to believe that the particular machine is an imported one and has more clarity when compared to others. The complainant took the machine to Kohima. After taking a few copies all of a sudden the machine showed malfunctioning and the prints were not having clarity or quality. On further inquiry, it was found that the machine is a second hand one, at least 12 years old and repainted. When informed the opposite party directed the complainant to bring the machine to the servicing centre/M/s. High Tech Services. On 5.1.1999 the machine was handed over to the servicing centre and a receipt issued. Several times the complainant went to take delivery of the machine. But the machine has not been returned so far. The complainant has sought for return of the amount of Rs. 1,07,000 with interest at 18% from 5.1.1999 and to pay Rs. 10,000 towards transporting charges and Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony, etc.
(3.)THE opposite party was set ex parte and in the execution proceedings the opposite party was arrested and later as per the order of this Commission the ex parte order of the Forum was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Forum. The opposite party has filed version denying that he is or was the proprietor of M/s. Super Tech. According to him he is occupying the room bearing No. KL/14 -43 in the building which was previously occupied by M/s. Super Tech and is carrying on business in the name and style of Day -to -Day Communications. He has denied any connection with M/s. Super Tech, It is pointed out that the EP filed was against the Proprietor, Super Tech, Ernakulam. It is further pointed out that the CDRF, Kollam wherein the complaint was originally filed, as per the order of the Forum after remand the complaint which was ordered to be submitted in the proper form at Ernakulam is not the same as filed at Kollam. The name of the opposite party has been incorporated in the complaint submitted before the CDRF, Ernakulam. He has denied anything to do with M/s. Super Tech. It is further contended that the Proprietor of M/s. Super Tech is one Subi Raj M.T. which he could collect from two documents which was found in the papers left by the said person at the present business premises of the opposite party.
We find that the case bundle includes the original complaint filed before CDRF, Kollam. In the cause title of the original complaint the opposite party was mentioned as the Proprietor, M/s. Super Tech, etc. Convent Junction, Market Road, Cochin. In the subsequent complaint the name of the opposite party is also incorporated. Evidently, the complainant has not suppressed anything. Hence we find that the complaint is not liable to be rejected on the above ground.

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