RICOH INDIA LTD. vs KORE RAMESH

FA. IA. No. 648/2000 is an application to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the Advocate for the petitioner/appellant it is stated that at the time of filing the appeal the original certified copy of the order of the District Forum could not be enclosed as it was in the custody of the appellants and, therefore, there was a delay in filing the original c8ertified copy of the order. Hence, the delay has to be condoned. The explanation as found in the affidavit mentioned above does not inspire confidence since the appellants should not have given back the original certified copy of the order when they seek to file the appeal. Therefore, the explanation is not satisfactory. The application FA. IA. No. 648/ 2000, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Even on merits the appeal has to be dismissed.s

THE opposite parties 1 and 2 in CD. No. 107/1998 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal are the appellants. THE case of the first respondent/complainant is that he being unemployed intended to start photo-copying by employing a xerox machine and for that purpose he approached the Bank of Baroda for sanction of loan under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and purchased a xerox machine from the second respondent who is a local dealer under first appellant who is the manufacturer and second appellant, the Area Manager. Though the machine worked satisfactorily for a few days but later it developed trouble, i.e., showing blank spaces on the xerox copies and, therefore, the quality of the work has gone down badly and there are complaints by the customers. THErefore, he complained to the second appellant and the second respondent who visited his shop and notwithstanding the repairs made by them the trouble continued. THErefore, he issued a legal notice which was received by the appellants and respondent No. 2 but without any response. THErefore, he approached the District Forum. The first respondent filed his affidavit which was treated as his examination-in-chief and also filed documents Exs. A-l to A-18. The appellant No. 2 though filed Vakalat through their Advocate but no written version was filed. So also the first appellant never made any attempt to file Vakalat or participate in the enquiry. Even the appellants did not choose to cross-examine the first respondent/complainant nor adduced any evidence.

On the basis of the evidence available on record the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service and accordingly allowed the complaint. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal.

THE evidence of P.W. 1 the first respondent/complainant supports the allegations in his complaint. He also placed the material by filing Exs. A-l to A-18. He approached the Bank of Baroda for sanction of loan which was sanctioned under Ex. A-5 which is the xerox copy of the cheque dated 6.5.1997 issued in favour of the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,21,500/-. THE second respondent has received the said cheque under Ex. A-14 receipt. Ex. A-16 is the Copier Invoice showing that the second respondent has sold and supplied to the first respondent/complainant the xerox machine. THErefore, there is ample proof that the first respondent/complainant has purchased the xerox machine from the second respondent. THE first respondent/complainant has complained that the xerox machine was giving trouble by way of various letters marked as Exs. A-l, A-ll and A-13. He has been requesting the appellants to replace the xerox machine right from Ex. A-l letter dated 18.11.1997. It is also stated in Ex. A-l that he has given a fax message even on 12.11.1997 informing them about the problem and seeking for relief. A detailed letter was addressed on 16.11.1997 to the second appellant also. But there was no response from either of them. From the material placed before the District Forum it is clear that there is truth in the grievance of the first respondent/complainant. In fact a lawyer notice was addressed to the appellants under Ex. A-2 which also contains all the facts upto issuance of the said notice. THE appellants did not choose to rebut the evidence adduced by the first respondent/complainant. THEy did not even choose to cross-examine the first respondent/complainant nor adduced any evidence on their behalf. Under these circumstances the District Forum in our view has rightly accepted the evidence of the first respondent/complainant. Mr. Javed Razack the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no proof that the appellants have charged Rs. 21,600/- over and above the market price for the xerox machine and that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum being the expenditure incurred for the installation of the machine is unreasonable. It is also his contention that a direction to supply a new machine without sufficient material cannot be sustained. We cannot accept any of these submissions. It has been the contention of the first respondent/complainant that xerox machine of similar model was sold to others for Rs. 99,000/- whereas the first respondent/complainant was charged Rs. 1,21,500/-. It is also his contention that Chakravarthy (Service Engineer) checked the xerox machine and said that the heater has been spoiled. Even though the heater was replaced the problem was not solved and the machine was giving much trouble and xerox copies are coming out with gaps or blanks and, therefore, the customers are complaining about the inferior quality of the copies and that they cannot be utilised by them. When copies are not useful it is common knowledge that the customers will not accept them. Apart from examining himself as P.W. 1, the complainant has adduced documentary evidence under Exs. A-l to A-18. The appellants never choose to cross-examine him. They did not go into the witness box to give evidence nor they produced any documents. They did not even issue any reply to the registered notice issued by the first respondent/ complainant through his lawyer under Ex. A-2. Having regard to these circumstances and in view of the evidence adduced by the first respondent/complainant the District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the xerox machine was not useful and that the appellants have charged Rs. 21,600/- more than the market price. In view of the evidence on record we are not pursuaded to take a different view other than the one taken by the District Forum. Voluminous evidence adduced by the first respondent/ complainant both oral and documentary clinchingly establishes that the xerox machine is not fit for production of copies and that Rs. 21,600/- was collected over and above the market price.

THE first respondent/complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- expenses incurred by him for the installation of the xerox machine. Claim for these amounts also is neither excessive nor unreasonable. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- for installation of the xerox machine cannot be said to be unreasonable since the machine cannot be placed in the open air. A roof or a room has to be provided for it and, therefore, the installation charges including cover for the machine requires this sum. Under these circumstances the contention of the first respondent/complainant that he has incurred Rs. 5,000/- towards the expenditure for installation of the xerox machine cannot be said to be unreasonable In view of the discussion above we do not find any defect in the order of the District Forum. THE appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.