LAWS(CHHCDRC)-2004-12-2

HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD Vs. ANITA TRIPATHI

Decided On December 31, 2004
HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD Appellant
V/S
ANITA TRIPATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'district Forum' for short) in Complaint Case No.257/98 whereby the complaint was allowed against opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) FACTS not presently in dispute are that the appellant is the manufacturer of the photocopier purchased by the complainant on 20.4.1996 under Pradhan Mantri Employment Scheme, after obtaining finance of Rs.95,000/ - from the opposite party No.3.

(3.) BRIEF facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a photocopy machine on 20.4.1996 under Pradhan Mantri Employment Scheme, after obtaining finance of Rs.95,000/ - from the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2/appellant is the manufacturer of the said machine. As per the complainant the machine was defective. Stabiliser of the said machine developed defect on 25.4.1996. On complaint the opposite party No.1 assured that they will replace the stabilizer within two three days but did not replace the same for months. Nearly after about seven months the said opposite party demanded Rs.9,000/ - for replacing the stabilizer. The complainant had however paid Rs.4,500/ - but despite replacement of stabilizer the machine did not function properly. The opposite party told that toner has developed defects. Thereafter it was told that the drum had developed defects and the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/ - from the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/ - and promised to pay the remaining amount afterwards but due to non -availability of relevant parts the machine could not be repaired. It is further averred that the said machine is lying in defective condition since 28.9.1996. The complainant had claimed refund of price from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As the machine was purchased after obtaining finance from the opposite party No.3, the complainant had also prayed for staying the recovery of loan by the opposite party No.3, Bank.