H.C.L. LIMITED vs KRISHNA XEROX SERVICE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 26.3.1998 directing the present appellant to refund Rs. 61,200/- being the cost of xerox machine within a month from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant was further directed to pay interest on the amount @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till payment. The cost of Rs. 300/- was awarded in favour of the complainant. The prayer for compensation was however rejected by the Forum.

THE case of the complainant is that it purchased a xerox machine from the O.P. for a consideration of Rs. 61,200/-. THE machine was delivered to it on 3.1.1995. Since the installation the machine failed to give satisfactory service. THE complainant brought this matter to the notice of the O.P. who stated that the drum was responsible for copying, was out of order. THE complainant claimed replacement of the machine, but, without any result. Hence, this case for refund of consideration money and compensation. The case was contested by the O.P. by filing a written statement wherein it has been stated that the instructions to operate the machine have not been strictly followed resulting in high cost per copy. According to the O.P. the machine should be installed in a dust free room so as to avoid any breakdown and the complainant having not properly operated the machine and not keep the said machine in a dust free room, the complication developed.

It was not disputed that the purchase was made by the complainant for valuable consideration. The complainant through their letter alleged that the costing of copy had become 44 paise in place of 30 paise as promised. He also informed the O.P. that one of the drums of the machine had gone out of order. It appears that the Forum requested the Electronic Regional Test Laboratory, Government of India at Calcutta to test the machine and submit the report. The report indicates that the Warming Up Indicator continued to blink and failed to come into operational mode and that further test could not be undertaken due to initial failure after being switched on. The Technical Expert who examined the machine was examined before the Forum who observed that the machine was defective. He however could not say whether the machine suffers from any inherent defect. The report of the expert as well as his evidence before the Forum clearly shows that the machine is defective. Accordingly we think that the Forum has come to a correct conclusion so we hold that the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal be dismissed on contest. The Judgment of the Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.