S L GUPTA Vs. NEW TECHNO GRAPHICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEMBERAGGRIEVED by the order in CD. No. 728/2007 on the file of District Forum -III, Hyderabad, the complainant. preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Canon CLC 700 copier machine with standard accessories for an amount of Rs. 45,000 on 20.4.2006. The complainant submits that opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of opposite party No. 2, who is the manufacturer of the said machine and it is only for eking out of his livelihood that he purchased the said photocopy machine with printer. On 27.4.2006 the problem arose and paper was jammed and the opposite party's personnel attended to the defects but could not rectify them. Once again on 23.5.2006, 2.6.2006,16.6.2006,21.6.2006, and 27.6.2006 the machine did not work properly. The opposite party's personnel attended to some of the problems on some days but the problems continued to recur and vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued a letter on 21.8.2006 and he requested the opposite party to take back the defective machine but did not receive any response. Once again he sent another letter on 27.9.2006 and further on 27.12.2006 but did not receive any reply. The printer was not connected and the complainant suffered monetary loss and he requested the opposite party in the letter stating that Rs. 40,000 was paid to the opposite party together with colour, toner charges of Rs. 8,000 and, therefore, he requested the opposite party to refund Rs. 48,000 and got issued another letter through courier on 2.8.2007 and once again did not receive any response. Hence the complaint seeking direction to refund Rs. 48,000 together with interest, compensation of Rs. 40,000 and costs.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed counter stating that he is the dealer in second hand