CONTINENTAL COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. vs MOUSUMI ROY

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13.9.1999 whereby the present appellants who were the O.Ps. before the Forum were directed jointly and severally to repair the disputed copier machine of the complainants to his satisfaction. It was further stipulated that in default thereof, the present appellants shall replace the said machine by a new one of same model.

THE complainant purchased the copier machine from O.P. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 94,500/- on 20.2.1997. Since the purchase the Photocopier Machine was found to be defective. Accordingly, the complainant approached the O.P. 1 for repair. THE said machine was repaired on several occasions but it could not be set right. According to the complainant the failure of the O.Ps. in setting right the copier machine constituted deficiency in service. The case was contested by O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3 by filing written statements. Several objections were taken regarding the maintainability of the case. It was asserted that initially there were some operational defects. But later the defects were rectified to the full satisfaction of the complainant. However, the Forum rejected all the contentions raised by the O.Ps. and was pleased to pass the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved thereby the O.Ps. 1 and 2 have appealed.

It appears that the machine was purchased on 20.2.1997 and the first complaint for its defective condition was brought to the notice of the O.Ps. on 26.2.1997. Thereafter, a series of complaints was made with the O.Ps. and the service reports indicate that on several occasions the machine was inspected and attempts were made to set it right. It appears that the defects persisted and the problems relating to the proper functioning of the machine were attributed to improper assembly of machine with substandard mechanical spares. The Forum noticed that the complainant approached O.P. 1 time and again for removal of the defects but even then it was not in workable condition. We have considered the submissions of the parties and the impugned judgment and find no merit in the appeal which requires dismissal.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Forum made O.Ps. 1 and 2 only jointly and severally liable but the manufacturer of the said machine viz. Lalani Info-tech Ltd. has not been made in any way responsible. He submits further that the said Firm being manufacturer of the machine is equally liable for the defective nature of the machine. We find substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent in this regard and hold that the O.P. 3 should, as well, be made responsible for repair of the disputed copier machine. For the reasons aforesaid we think that the operative part of the judgment needs slight modification. O.P. 3 should also be made jointly and severally liable along with O.Ps. 1 and 2 and we order accordingly. In fine, it is ordered that O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable to repair the disputed copier machine and in default thereof they are to replace the said machine by a new one of the same model.

THE judgment of the Forum below is affirmed subject to this modification. THE order passed by the Forum which is hereby affirmed in appeal with modification is liable to be complied with by O.Ps. 1 to 3 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. THE award of cost of Rs. 400/- is also maintained. THE appeal be disposed of with the above observations. Appeal disposed of.