SUBHAG MAL JAIN vs MODI XEROX LIMITED

THE applicant has filed an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices and claiming compensation of Rs. 2,34,876/-. THE grievance of the applicant is that he purchased a photocopier machine from the respondent, Modi Xerox Limited and paid an amount of Rs. 68,432.50 but the machine supplied by the respondent did not give satisfactory service and the respondent also could not arrange regular supply of consumable spares as per its assurances and promises.

A notice in respect of the applicant''s compensation application was issued to the respondent and in reply thereto, while denying the charge of unfair and restrictive trade practices, it has been stated that no misleading representation or misrepresentation was made to the applicant and the advertisement which appeared in the month of August, 1996 could not have applied to the machine sold and supplied to him in September-October, 1994. It has been pointed out that the photocopier machine model ''Modi Xerox - 5212'' was purchased by the applicant on 30th September, 1994 and it was installed in the premises of the applicant on 10th October, 1994. It has been further stated on behalf of the respondent that the photocopier in question, carried a warranty of 90 days or 50,000 copies whichever occurred earlier and the warranty conditions are printed on the reverse of the proforma invoice of 30th September, 1994. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent has indulged in or has been indulging in the restrictive and unfair trade practices as alleged in the Compensation Application ? (ii) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair and restrictive trade practices ? (iii) The compensation to which the applicant is entitled ?

On behalf of the applicant Shri Subhag Mal Jain, who is applicant himself, appeared as a witness and was cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the respondent whereas Shri Laxman S. Halani appeared as a witness for the respondent. We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and considered the evidence on record. From the Proforma Invoice dated 30.9.1994 annexed with the complaint, it appears that the photocopier was purchased by the applicant and it was installed on 10.10.1994, and although the photocopier machine in question carried a warranty, the conditions governing the sale and service of the photocopier were given on the reverse of the proforma invoice dated 30.9.1994. Perusal of Condition No. 3 which pertains to warranty reveals that the warranty was for a period of 90 days from the date of installation or 50,000 copies whichever occurred earlier.

IT is not disputed or denied that the machine was installed on 10.10.1994 and it appears that the first complaint regarding its performance was made on 12.4.1995 and subsequently on 11.7.1995, 25.10.1995, 15.2.1996 and 15.11.1996, all of which pertain to the period after the warranty of 90 days had expired. Thus, going by the conditions of sale and service appearing on the reverse of the proforma invoice and it seems that these are the terms and conditions which govern the sale and service of the photocopier in question, no case of unfair/restrictive trade practices appears to have been made out as no misleading representation or misrepresentation regarding the photocopier can be said to have been made by the respondent. Therefore, our finding on issue No. (i) is in the negative and accordingly, the applicant cannot be said to have suffered any loss during the period of warranty. If the applicant did not suffer any loss, it stands to reason that the question of awarding any compensation does not arise. The present compensation application is accordingly, rejected with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. dismissed.