VENUS COMPUGRAPHICS vs ZENITH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant is a partnership firm carrying on business of Laser Printer. THE 1st opposite party supplied one "TI (TEXAS) MICRO LASER PRINTER PS-35" in March, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 95,000/-. Due to some technical snag, the system did not function in the month of July, 1992. It was sent to the 2nd Opposite Party, which is the Sister concern of the 1st Opposite Party, for repairs on 8/7/92. THE 2nd Opposite Party referred it to the 3rd Opposite Party, which is the another sister concern. THE Complainant was asked to change some parts and a sum of Rs. 16020/- collected there for. THE 3rd Opposite Party, in addition, collected service charge of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant. THE Laser Printer was reinstalled on 5.11.92. But on 11.11.92, it again went out of order and sent back for repairs. It was returned on 20.11.92 by the 3rd Opposite Party to the Complainant. Again, it was sent back for service on 23.11.92. Since then, it is lying with the 3rd Opposite Party. It has not taken care to rectify the defects and return the Laser in a good order. Hence, this complaint for directing the Opposite Parties to return the Laser after duly repairing the same or to supply a new Laser, preferrably in a sound working condition, to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards business loss, Rs. 75,000/- for hardships, sufferings, pain and agony with interest. The 3rd opposite party has filed a counter on behalf of the opposite parties. It is contended that the Complainant is not a consumer, as the Laser has been purchased for a commercial purpose. The Laser has been purchased in the month of March, 1991 and the complaint filed on 26.5.1993 is barred by time. The complaint as against the 3rd opposite party is not maintainable, as it has not sold the Laser. There is no Maintenance Contract with the 3rd Opposite Party. It is denied that the 3rd Opposite Party refused to deliver the Laser. But, it is the Complainant who has deliberately not chosen to take delivery. The 3rd Opposite Party is willing to do the repairs and deliver the Laser on payment of costs.

Exhibits Al to A10 and Bl to B2 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable ? (2) Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ? and (3) To what relief, if any, is the complainant entitled ? Point No. 1: The complainant, which is the Partnership Concern, carrying on business of Laser Printers, has purchased one "TI (TEXAS) MICRO LASER PRINTER PS-35" from the 1st Opposite Party through the 2nd Opposite Party branch at Madras for a sum of Rs. 95,000/- in March, 1991. Ex. Al is the delivery chalan issued by the 2nd opposite party, dated 7.3.91. This machinery has worked till July, 1992, from when it did not function. It has been sent to the 2nd opposite party for repair on 8.7.92. The 2nd opposite party has referred to the 3rd Opposite Party, which is the sister concern dealing with repairs of Laser Printers. The 3rd Opposite Party has collected a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as service charge under Ex. A3, dated 5.11.92. Some parts have been changed, for which the 2nd opposite party has collected a sum of Rs. 16,320/- under Ex. A5. After repairs, the Laser Printer has been reinstalled in the Complainant''s premises on 5.11.92. But, it has failed to function and was sent back to the 3rd opposite party on 11.11.92 and Ex. A6 is the receipt passed by the 3rd opposite party for receiving the Laser Printer. On 20.11.92, the 3rd Opposite Party has delivered the printer to the complainant after repairs, as is seen from Ex. A7, dated 20.11.92. Within 3 days, it had to go back to the 3rd opposite party for repairs and Ex. A8 is the delivery chalan, dated 23.11.92. According to the complainant, the Laser is still lying with the 3rd opposite party and has not been returned after repairs Hence this complaint.

THE first question is whether the complainant is a consumer. THE Laser Printer has been purchased from the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, evidently for a commercial purpose and the complainant is not therefore, a consumer as purchaser of goods under Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. But, the Complainant is, certainly, a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act as hirer or availer of the services of the 3rd opposite party, which is the sister concern of opposite parties 1 & 2, dealing with repairs, for repairing this Laser Printer. Ex. A3 is the receipt for the service charge of Rs. 2,000/- received by the 3rd opposite party, dated 5.11.92. On that day, the mechinery has been repaired and sent to the complainant by the 3rd opposite party. THE complainant has also paid Rs. 16,320/- for purchase of spare parts, as per Ex. A5. But, it had to be returned to the 3rd Opposite Party on 11.11.92 for service under Ex. A4. This is evidenced from Ex. A6 issued by the 3rd Opposite Party. THE 3rd Opposite Party has again repaired it and sent it to the complainant on 20.11.92 under Ex. A11. But, it had to be returned to the 3rd Opposite Party on 23.11.92 for further repairs as is evidenced by Ex. A8. THE 3rd opposite party, as already stated, is the sister concern of opposite parties, 1 & 2 constituted for the purpose of repairing the Laser Printers and this service of the 3rd Opposite Party has been availed of by the complainant in repairing of the Laser Printer by the 3rd opposite party, for which service charges has also been paid. THE Complainant is, therefore, a consumer as regards the 3rd Opposite Party under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. THE point is found accordingly against the 3rd Opposite Party. Point No. 2: As already pointed out, the Printer has been sent to the 3rd Opposite Party on 8-7.92 for repairs and after repairs, it has been returned to the Complainant by the 3rd opposite party on 5.11.92, on which date, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been collected by the 3rd opposite party as Service Charges. On the same day, the complainant has paid Rs. 16,320/- towards spare parts, as per Ex. A5. The Laser Printer did not function properly and it has been returned to the 3rd Opposite Party on 11.11.92 under Ex. A6. The 3rd opposite party has once again repaired it and sent to the complainant on 20.11.92 under Ex. A7. But, within 3 days, it had to be sent back to the 3rd Opposite Party i.e. 23.11.92, for repairs and has not been returned. It is lying with the 3rd Opposite Party. It is obvious that the 3rd opposite party has not effected the repairs properly and the machinery has to go back for nearly 3 times between 8.7.92 to 23.11.92. It is true that there is no contract for maintenance. But, the 3rd Opposite Party has accepted the machinery for effecting repairs and collected Rs. 2,000/- as service charges. But, it has failed to repair it properly and make it work regularly. There has, therefore, been gross deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite Party. Point No. 3 : The complainant is not entitled to any relief as against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, who have sold the machinery to the complainant. It is the 3rd Opposite Party, who is responsible to complainant for its failure to effect repairs to the machinery properly, having received service charge of Rs. 2,000/- and spare parts of value of Rs. 16,320/-. The complainant is entitled to have the machinery repaired properly and returned to the complainant in good working condition. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for the delay. The machinery is lying with the 3rd Opposite Party from 23.11.92 till to day, for nearly one and a half years. In its counter, the third opposite party has expressed its readiness and willingness to effect repairs and return the machinery. But, this seems to be an empty offer as is evidenced from the facts. The 3rd Opposite Party has not taken any steps to repair the machinery nor has sent any communication about the charges necessary. The 3rd Opposite Party is solely to be blamed for the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant has claimed business loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day. We are inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as loss of business for the past one and a half years. We are also inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony to the complainant.

IN the result, we order as follows: (1) The 3rd Opposite Party shall effect repairs to the Laser Printer still lying with it and return it to the complainant in good working order within 30 days from the date of this order. (2) The 3rd Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for loss of business, during this long period of one and a half years. (3) The 3rd Opposite Party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by the Complainant (4) If the 3rd Opposite Party fails to effect repairs and return the machinery to the complainant in good working order within one month from the date of this order, the 3rd Opposite Party shall be liable to pay compensation at Rs. 500/- per day from the date of default till the rectification of the deficiency. (5) The 3rd Opposite Party shall also pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. (6) The complaint fails and is dismissed as against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, but without costs.

Complaint dismissed.