Xerox India Ltd vs B D CHAWLA

-THIS is an appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''act'') against the judgment and order dated 7. 12. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2/2000.

HEARD Mr. S. C. Dhasmana, Advocate learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. D. Chawla in person and perused the impugned judgment and order and other materials available on record. The order in question was assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the ground that in the instant case as and when the needful services were required in terms of the warranty the same had been provided to the Photostat machine and the machine in question in fact was not suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect but the learned District Forum swayed away by the irrelevant consideration allowed the complaint and ordered for the replacement by a new photocopier machine after accepting the sold Photostat machine and also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation towards the mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,000 towards the costs of the suit. In the event of non-payment of the awarded sum within 45 days, a further 10% payment liability of interest was saddled.

In the instant case, the complainant purchased a Photostat machine Model No. 5216, Machine No. 2903653712 from the appellant company on 11. 8. 1999 which was installed at the premises of the complainant at Saharanpur on 25. 8. 1999 in working condition and the complainant was also given necessary user training to operate the machine to the entire satisfaction. It was sold and as a goodwill gesture the appellant also provided a stabilizer worth Rs. 6,500 free of cost. The learned District Forum finds substance in the allegation of the complainant, allowed the complaint as ordered.

THE point to be determined is as to whether the photocopier machine in question has suffered any inherent manufacturing defect or not. From the documents, it is clear that at the time of installation of the machine on 25. 8. 1999 the Engineer of the appellant company also churned out 155 copies from the said machine. The complainant after being satisfied with the quality of the performance of the sold machine as well as its installation signed on the service call note dated 25. 8. 1999. The warranty of the said machine was for 90 days or 50,000 copies whichever is earlier as per the terms and conditions. The complainant made a first complaint on 5. 10. 1999 i. e. after 40 days of the installation which was attended too by the appellant company and it was found that the drum was damaged across its diameter due to negligence of the complainant by inserting some obstacle light pin or staple pin along with paper. The said drum was replaced worth Rs. 6,200 that too free of cost though it was not an obligation of the appellant as per the terms of the warranty. The machine thereafter started running well to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as admitted by him by signing on the service call note dated 5. 10. 1999. From the date of the installation i. e. 25. 8. 1999 till the date of first complaint i. e. 5. 10. 1999 the machine had churned out 1126 photocopies as per own admission of the complainant. The second complaint was made by the complainant on 3. 11. 1999 which on attending was found by the Engineer having the problem of paper jam which occurred due to bending of one of the stripper finger due to mishandling and careless removal of the jammed paper from the machine which caused again damage to the drum. Thus, the drum too was replaced by the appellant free of cost though costing Rs. 6,200. After the replacement of the drum the machine started running well to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and a service call note dated 3. 11. 1999 in lieu thereof was signed by the complainant. The third complaint was made on 12. 11. 1999 and it was found that the machine had some minor software related problem due to which the exposure lamp was not working in particular range of magnification. The said problem was solved through the control panel even without opening the machine. The complainant found the machine running well to his satisfaction and signed on the service call note dated 12. 11. 1999. There was yet another complaint dated 13. 11. 1999 and when the same was attended it was found that some creasing problem occurred in the machine due to use of poor quality of paper. In the presence of the complainant after making the problem over, the Engineer of the company took out 2,000 copies from the said machine with recommended paper. After being satisfied the complainant signed on the service call note dated 13. 11. 1999. From the own documents maintained by the complainant, it will be clear that till then the machine had churned out 4780 copies. Another complaint dated 16. 11. 1999 too was attended and the problem of producing black copies which was occurred due to misuse of the machine by the complainant was removed through the control panel even without opening the machine. The warranty period in this process expired on 22. 11. 1999 but no service contract was entered into by the complainant with the appellant company and thus there was no liability for providing any service in the absence of the contract after 22. 11. 1999 free of cost. From the records, it is, thus, clear that even after expiry of the warranty period and even without entering into service contract by the complainant, the appellant inspected the machine on 8. 12. 1999 and 15. 12. 1999 and found that the machine was working satisfactorily. It was also noticed by the Engineer that the machine had churned out 9104 copies till 8. 12. 1999 and 9560 copies till 15. 12. 1999 and endorsement thereof consequently was made in the log book maintained by the complainant.

FROM these situations, thus, it is clear that as and when the complaints were made, the Engineers were attending to the complaints and mostly the complaints were found because of inapt and irresponsible handling of the machine or due to the poor quality of the paper, the output was not available as expected. In none of the contingencies it can be inferred that it was a case of manufacturing defect in the sold, supplied and installed photocopier. The learned District Forum did not make any venture whatsoever to look into all these relevant aspects and has jumped to a conclusion basing on extraneous considerations making consequently the judgment and order in question unsustainable in law and on facts. We, thus, find substance in the appeal. Order The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum are set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. In the event of any deposit made in view of the interim order of the State Commission, if any, the said deposit shall be entitlement of the appellant of being withdrawn along with accrued interest. Appeal allowed.