Alpha Drug India Ltd vs H C L Ltd

THE respondents supplied and installed a photocopier at the premises of the complainant on 29.6.89. Its total price was Rs. 92,995/ -. Thereafter the complainant had been engaging the respondents for its maintenance from year to year under the agreements. It has been alleged that the photocopier remained non -functional/mal -functional at numerous occasions in August, October, 91, May, July, October and November, 92 described in Paras 14, 15 and 20 of the complaint. The complainant has alleged deficiency in the machines and also in the service which was agreed to by the respondent. The refund of the entire price of Rs. 92,995/ - together with the interest @ 18%, in the alternative a new copier together with a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - on account of deficiency has been claimed.

THE respondents have filed a reply wherein it has been averred that whenever required they had been visiting the complainant and the occasional delay in providing service had been because the machine was shifted from Chandigarh to Lalru a near -by station. On behalf of the respondents its Sale Manager Shri M.S. Sidhu filed an affidavit dated 18.4.95 but despite several adjournments neither Shri Sidhu nor Shri A. Khanna who filed affidavits on behalf of the respondents came forward for the purpose of cross -examination. It may be useful to give here non -functional period from Annexures A -9 and A -6 and the relevant part thereof is as under: 4.4.91 to 17.4.91 14 days 7.6.91 to 19.6.91 13 days 4.7.91 to 9.7.91 6 days 27.7.91 to 24.8.91 29 days Total : 62 days Month Period Days Total Days Break -down Time Amount (Rs) Oct. 92 16.10.92 to 23.10.92 8 16 8x150 1,200/ - Nov. 92 3.11.92 to 30.11.92 28 30 2x150 300/ - Dec. 92 1.12.92 to 3.12.92 3 3 7x150 14.12.92 to 31.12.92 18 27 9x150 1,350/ - Jan. 93 1.1.93 to 9.1.93 9 31 22x150 3,300/ - 66 107 41 6,250/ -

AFTER perusal of the terms and conditions and the details of performance given in Annexures A -6 & A -9 has remained un -rebutted. We are satisfied that there had been break downs and neither the machine worked satisfactorily and at the same time the service rendered was also deficient.

SINCE in this case the purchase was made long ago on 29.6.89 and the complaint was instituted on 27.2.93, it cannot be considered a fit case for replacement of the machine. However, as regards deficiency in rendering periodical service after perusal of the tables referred to above it is held that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - which shall be payable by the respondents together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the complaint till realisation. Announced. The orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. Complaint allowed.