S.L.GUPTA Vs. NEW TECHNO GRAPHICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 728/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Canon CLC 700 copier machine with standard accessories for an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 20-4-2006. The complainant submits that opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer of the said machine and it is only for eking out of his livelihood that he purchased the said photocopy machine with printer. On 27-4-2006 the problem arose and paper was jammed and the opposite partys personnel attended to the defects but could not rectify them. Once again on 23-5-2006, 02-6-2006, 16-6-2006, 21-6-2006, and 27-6-2006 the machine did not work properly. The opposite partys personnel attended to some of the problems on some days but the problems continued to recur and vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued a letter on 21-8-2006 and he requested the opposite party to take back the defective machine but did not receive any response. Once again he sent another letter on 27-9-2006 and further on 27-12-2006 but did not receive any reply. The printer was not connected and the complainant suffered monetary loss and he requested the opposite party in the letter stating that Rs.40,000/- was paid to the opposite party together with colour, toner charges of Rs.8,000/- and therefore he requested the opposite party to refund Rs.48,000/- and got issued another letter through courier on 2-8-2007 and once again did not receive any response. Hence the complaint seeking direction to refund Rs.48,000/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.40,000/- and costs.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that he is the dealer in second hand photo copy machines which are imported in as is where is basis and the complainant was informed of the same and was also told that there would be no warrantee extended and cost of spare parts are to be borne by the purchaser. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- only on 20-4-2006 and Rs.10,000/- each in June and July but did not pay the balance of Rs.5,000/-. A demand was raised on 2-8-2006 but the complainant did not pay any amounts. Opposite party no.1 has been attending to all the complaints and there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.