ZENITH COMPUTERS LTD. vs VENUS COMPUGRAPHICS

THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, passed in O.P. No. 293 of 1993 dated 29th June, 1994.

THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, M/s. Venus Compugraphics, placed an order with M/s. U. I. Systems Pvt. Ltd., Madras, who in turn referred the said order to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Madras, who in turn referred the matter to M/s. Zenith Technologies, Bombay, who are the suppliers of laser printer. "IT (Texas) Micro Laser Printer PS-35" was supplied to the respondent No. 1 in March, 1991. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm having constituted for the purposes of carrying on business of laser printing. This laser printer was brought to M/s. Zenith Technologies Ltd., Madras on account of some technical snag on 5.11.1992. The delivery challan was issued by M/s. Zenith Technologies Ltd. and then, as it appears from the material on records, was forwarded to Zenith Computers Ltd., Madras on 5.11.1992 itself. The notation on the delivery challan dated 5.11.1992 issued by Zenith Technologies Ltd., mentioned "return after service". Zenith Computers Ltd., replaced the consumables and charged Rs. 16,320/- and service charges of Rs. 2,000/- on 5.11.1992. The laser printer was again brought to Zenith Computers Ltd., on 11.11.1992 with the same technical snag which was returned after repairs without any charges levied by Zenith Computers. The notation in the delivery note dated 20th November, 1992, is "after testing now system is well" and has been signed by the respondent No. 1. Again on 23rd November, 1992, the laser printer was returned for service to Zenith Computers Ltd., as it was with the notation "(Return for Service) after service printer is not working well". The appellant after examining the laser printer found that it will cost about Rs. 30,000/- to repair the laser printer which it appears was not acceptable to the respondent No. 1 as according to him since they have already paid Rs. 16,320/- and Rs. 2,000/- for service charges, they were entitled to free service now.

. IT is the contention of the appellant that since after the first service, which was only for replacement of the consumables, and since there was no after repair guarantee or warranty issued by the appellant, they were under no obligation to carry out the repairs free of cost. The State Commission examined two main issues, namely, whether the respondent No. 1 is a ''Consumer'' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act or not and secondly, whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

THE State Commission found the respondent No. 1 to be the consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and found deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and ordered relief by way of ordering the appellant to affect repairs to the laser printer, still lying with it and return to the complainant in good working order within 30 days from the date of the order of the State Commission; the appellant was also asked to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for loss of business. The appellant was also asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant. It was also ordered that, if the appellant fails to affect repairs and return the machinery to the complainant in good working order within one month from the date of the order, the appellant shall be liable to pay a compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day from the date of default till the rectification of the deficiency and lastly the appellant shall also pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent No. 1. The complaint was dismissed against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal. The main argument of the appellant is that respondent No. 1 is not a consumer within the definition of ''Consumer'' given in the Consumer Protection Act because admittedly respondent No. 1 is utilising the laser printer for commercial purpose. And, the second argument is that they are not the suppliers of the hardware i.e., Laser Printer and, there is no service contract with them to bind them to any post-sales care in the form of warranty or guarantee. Since in the normal routine they are carrying out their work of laser printer repairs and allied activities, the complainant came like any other customer and the respondent/appellant treated him as such. When original service was carried out on 5.11.1992 there was no warranty associated with it as no repair was carried out. It was only a replacement of the consumables as is evidenced by the memo issued to that effect and what they have charged also is towards ''service'' charges which will make evidently clear that no repairs were carried out by the appellant. When finally on 23rd November, 1992 laser printer was delivered, they had been repeatedly reminding the respondent No. 1 either to take away the laser printer or to agree to pay Rs. 30,000/- for repairs. Without taking cognizance of this offer or any action in this regard, the respondent No. 1 decided to seek remedy before the State Commission.

. THE reply filed by respondent No. 1 in the appeal case before the National Commission reiterates all the facts as brought out in the facts of the case, inter alia, stating that they are within the definition of ''consumer'' as also that the service charges charged by the appellant were for repairs which were not properly carried out and the appellant was duty bound to carry out the subsequent repairs and restore the laser printer in working condition which he has failed to do in spite of legal notice issued through their Lawyer to the appellant. THE respondent has maintained that the order of the State Commission is perfectly valid. THEy have also stated that the details given at Rs. 30,000/- given before the National Commission of the estimated cost of repairs to the printer is an after thought and was never mentioned to them at any stage nor did they adduce this before the State Commission. THE appellant in the rejoinder has rebutted all the points made by the respondent No. 1, but are silent about the break up of the costs estimates and the fact about when were they communicated to the respondent No. 1 THE plea taken by the appellant in the rejoinder is that they had informed the respondent about the estimated costs and wanted the respondent No. 1 to come to their office so that then they could discuss about the details and particulars of the break up of the amount, since the respondent No. 1 never came, hence there was no occasion to communicate this break up.

AFTER going through the material on record and also hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties we find that the State Commission''s appreciation on the point of accepting the respondent No. 1 as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(2) of the Consumer Protection is in order and we agree with the analysis and appreciation of the State Commission on this point. A perusal of the documents shows that on 5th November, 1992, the laser printer was accepted for service. The two items for which charges were levied by Zenith Computers Ltd., are consumables and could not be deemed to be part of any repair. For rendering the service they have levied a service charge of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, in our view, the State Commission''s order on the subject and rationale which is based on ''repairs'' hypothesis is not maintainable. The State Commission has stated in para 8 of the order "It is obvious that the 3rd opposite party (appellant herein) has not affected the repairs properly.. But, the 3rd opposite party has accepted the machinery for affecting repairs and collected Rs. 2,000/- as service charges". It appears that the word ''repair'' repeatedly mentioned in the order has vitiated the outcome of the complaint filed before them; the word ''repair'' does not find mention in any of the documents on record. No oral or documentary evidence was brought forth by the complainant before the State Commission to support his contention that it was a case of repair. A perusal of the invoice No. 6042 dated 5.11.1992 issued by Zenith Technologies, Secunderabad, will make it clear that it was for supply of ''toner kit'' and ''development kit'' which cannot be deemed to be a part of any repair and the invoice issued by Zenith Computers Ltd., on 5.11.1992 clearly says that it was for ''Service charges''. Since no repairs were carried out, no ''service'' seemed to have been rendered by the appellant. Even if it is treated as a case of repair in the absence of any guarantee given by the repairer, the Act cannot be invoked for any relief because when the first two times the hardware was brought to the appellant and when it was delivered it was found acceptable and was found to be in working condition. Both the times it was used for a few days by the respondent No. 1. There is no evidence on record to state that the hardware called for the same repairs or replacement as was supplied in the form of replacement kits.

SINCE there is no privity between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to rectify the laser printer of the respondent No. 1. When there was no such privity, no right existed for the respondent No. 1 to look for any relief to ensure that subsequent services were rendered free. In view of this we set aside the order of the State Commission and it is ordered that the laser printer now lying with the appellant is to be collected by the respondent No. 1 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since we see on record letter dated 28th October, 1994, only as a proof of the contention of the appellant, a letter addressed to the respondent No. 1, that the laser printer has been repaired for which the appellant expected a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Since the respondent No. 1 is a self-employed lady as is evidenced from the facts as she had obtained a loan from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation under the ''Mahila Udayam'' Scheme, the ends of justice will be served if the machine is returned to the respondent No. 1 without levy of any charges. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their own costs.