XEROX INDIA LTD Vs. ELSY AUGUSTINE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-12-5
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 07,2009

XEROX INDIA LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Elsy Augustine Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HCL OFFICE AUTOMATION LTD VS. SUREMAN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 25 -11 -2008 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 22/2008. The complaint therein was filed by the first respondent as complainant against the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 as opposite parties 1 to 4 respectively. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in curing the defects developed by the Xerox Machine which was purchased by the complainant from the 4th opposite party dealer. The opposite parties 1 and 2 (appellants) are the manufacturers of the said photo copying machine and the second respondent (3rd opposite party) is the service provider. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written versions denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and that there were no defects in the photo copying machine purchased by the complainant from them. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. They also contended that the photo copying machine which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties was having only 3 months warranty and the warranty period has already been expired.
(2.)BEFORE the Forum bellow, the husband of the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A7 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite parties B1 and B2 service call notes were produced and marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found the opposite parties deficient in rendering service. Thereby directed the first opposite party, the manufacturer of the photo copying machine to replace the same by a new one. The opposite parties are also directed to supply a new one by accepting Rs. 26,000/ - from the complainant. In the alternative, the first opposite party was directed to refund Rs. 39,000/ - to the complainant. The complainant was also directed to surrender the defective machine to the first opposite party. The opposite parties are made jointly and severally liable to pay cost of Rs. 500/ - to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC No. 22/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.
(3.)WE heard the Counsel for the appellants and first respondent (complainant). There was no representation for respondents 2 and 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the photocopying machine purchased by the complainant was having the warranty period for 3 months and that A3 warranty card was not issued by the 4th opposite party dealer of the machine. It is further submitted that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to substantiate her case that the photocopying machine was having manufacturing defect. Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and also for dismissal of the complaint in CC No. 22/08. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent (complainant) supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He submitted that A3 warranty card was issued for the photocopying machine which was purchased by the complainant from opposite parties and that the documentary evidence available on record would show that the said machine was having manufacturing defect. Thus, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rectifying the defects developed by the photo copying machine which was purchased by the complainant?

2. Whether the case of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the photocopying machine can be upheld?

3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25 -11 -2008 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 22/08?



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