MANGATRAM DURGADAS PARASHAR vs REGIONAL SALES MANAGER, HCL LIMITED

THE complainant is running a business in the name of Parashar Electronics and keeps a xerox machine for the purpose of his clients on payment basis. It has not been disputed that the machine was purchased on 23.3.89 and delivered in July 89 for Rs. 92,995/-. THE Company had given a warranty of three months or 1 lakh copies whichever is earlier. It has not been disputed that the warranty period has expired since long and the complainant has taken about 3.5 lakhs copies from this machine till today.

THERE appears to be no complaint regarding the performance of the machine, but the whole complaint is based upon the non-supply of certain parts which, according to the complainant, amounts to unfair trade practice adopted by the opponent. The reason given by the complainant was that since the complainant has not taken out service contract with the opponent the opponent is not supplying him necessary spare parts which, according to the complainant, amounts to unfair trade practice resulting into loss of profits and other damages amounting to Rs. 1,57,995/-. The complaint is drafted in a very cryptic manner and does not disclose as to when the demand was made for the spare parts and the said demand was not satisfied. Mr. Supehia, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant relies upon notice dated 23.12.91 in which the complainant''s advocate has stated that because the complainant has not continued the service contract, inspite of the oral requests of the complainant, the service engineer did not use to turn up for days together and service contract was merely an eye-wash and that was the reason why his client has not entered into service contract with the opposite party. It was further alleged that on account of not continuing the service contract unfair trade practice has been adopted by the company indirectly to compel him to continue the service contract. There is a further allegation that on all the occasions whenever his client approached for the spare parts the company did not care for his complaint and the machine had to be out of order for days together. The instances mentioned are (a) to (f). Clause (a) refers to the complaint regarding non-functioning of developer. Clause (b) refers to the toner sensor which was not working properly and complaint was lodged with the company. Clause (c) refers to the clutch gear which was out of order and the company had informed that the same was not supplied since there was no ready stock and his client had to purchase the same from the market by spending about Rs. 400/-. The machine was out of order for 8 days. This complaint regarding spare part is dated 10.4.91. Clause (d) is with regard to feed motor gear which was broken and request was made to supply the same. Ultimately it was got repaired from the market. The machine remained out of order for 5 days. Clause (e) is with regard to one part 1C 21 which was not working properly and the same was not supplied in time. It was supplied only on 28.8.91. Therefore the machine remained out of order for 9 days. Clause (f) refers to the incident on 10.11.91 regarding non-functioning of IC 8050P, to which his client was told that the part is not available with Ahmedabad office. Even Bombay office had not made available the part. The Delhi office also could not supply the part and more than 40 days have gone till the date of notice. These are the only incidents quoted in the notice though the same are not quoted in the complaint so that the other side can reply properly.

Mr. Marshal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opponents has stated that they have replied the notice denying the contents thereof. Though the notice is annexed with the written statement as stated in the written statement, the same is not on the file. We have seen the reply of the notice since the other side had not objected since the copy of the original notice is in possession of the other side but that notice is dated 15.1.92. This notice appears to have been received by the complainant as stated by Mr. Supehia on 25.1.92 i.e. after the filing of the complaint. Nothing turns of this notice because it contains the denial of the averments made by the complainant. We, therefore, consider the reply filed by the opponents. They have stated that the machine was attended and put in order by changing several parts. However, it is further stated that the complainant was never ready to pay for the repairs carried out and wishes to have repairs and also change of spares absolutely free of charge. The machine, according to the opponents carries 90 days warranty period and 6 months service period and during that period the service rendered was of finest order and there- after the service contract came to an end. Even then the complainant kept on complaining about the service rendered. With regard to the toner censor, in para 8 the company bad submitted that the toner censor is an imported part and is also a costlier one valued at around Rs, 3,000/-. The company would have agreed to replace the same if the complainant was prepared to pay the charges but the complainant was not prepared to pay the charges. The company repaired the old one absolutely free of charge and set the machine in working order. With regard to the main PCB, the company has submitted that it is not sold as a part. However, in order to accommodate the customer the same was supplied on 6.2.92. In para 11 the company has submitted that the complainant has a load of approximately 10,000 copies a month and obviously in view of the large work load, machine needs proper maintenance. The reading on 9.3.92 of 3,42,512 copies clearly shows that the complainant''s machine is working and was working and the complainant''s says that it is not working is absolutely false and frivolous. In para 12 it is further stated that the company serviced the machine and the complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 900/-. That surprisingly when the cheque was deposited in the bank, the same was not cleared. In other words, the cheque bounced. As a result the Company even today has to recover Rs. 900/- from the complainant which he has not bothered to pay. In view of this be haviour it clearly emerges that the complainant is not willing to pay for the dues and the complaint filed by the complainant after suppressing the relevant facts cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.

MR. Marshal states that even today the company is ready and willing to give all the spare parts which the complainant requires provided the payment is made in cash or by bank draft. There is no averment in the complaint that the complainant was ready and willing to pay for the same and that the spare parts were not supplied. On going through the pleadings and affidavit we are satisfied that there is no material or evidence worth name produced by the complainant which will lead us to come to the conclusion that the opposite party is following unfair trade practice. Even to this date the service charges of Rs. 900/- given by cheque has not been paid to the Company and we are of the opinion that the company is under no obligation to supply any spare part till the payment of Rs, 900/- is made. It also appears that all these complaints have started from April 1991. Prior to that the complainant has taken sufficient advantage of the machine which has worked very well and since the machine is used for business, it will definitely require more care, attention and service and the machine has not been shown to competent engineer who can repair this machine. We have no other evidence of any expert to say that the machine was in any way defective.

THERE is no specific notice given by the complainant demanding a particular spare part with the undertaking to pay the charges. The instances are only 2 or 3 and the same were ultimately supplied except the logic PCB 8050 P which is available at about Rs. 7,500/- and naturally the company would not deliver the same unless the payment is made or guaranteed. Inspite of the offer made by Mr. Marshal the complainant has not accepted that offer and we therefore are of the opinion that in this case the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the opponents have adopted unfair trade practice. We had specifically asked Mr. Supehia to point out as to whether under the terms of contract or the brochure issued by the opponents they have undertaken to supply the spare parts particularly imported spare parts. Mr. Supehia is not able to show any such obligation except the advertisement given by HCL Ltd. wherein they have mentioned like this. "The preventive maintenance book and elite task force of photocopier specialists will iron out the naughtiest of problems. The special technical repair centres set up in every region ensures availability of spares." This advertisement has been published in the newspaper on 10.2.92. But Mr. Supehia is not able to produce any document prior to the purchase of the machine nor is his case that he has gone to the company for getting this machine and that the company was not employing elite task force of photocopier specialists to iron out the naughtiest of the problems. The advertisement suggest that special technical repair centres are set up in every region to ensure availability of spares. Mr. Marshal states that this is in relation to the special technical repair centres where they keep all the spares but not with regard to selling of such spares in the market. Even then Mr. Marshal states that the company when sells the machine has to keep its reputation in the market and in order to keep that reputation they are always ready to supply the spare parts. Even if it is not available they will get it from other place but in that case it might take little time because the demand regarding spares which are imported items where the stock is always limited. Mr. Supehia has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder at the time of arguments wherein he has tried to explain the stop payment of the cheque to which we are not satisfied. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim made by the complainant is highly exaggerated and not supported by proper evidence and is liable to be rejected with cost. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. The complainant will pay the cost to the company which we quantify at Rs. 250/-. Complaint dismissed. _______________