SHEELA BERNARD Vs. PHIL SYSTEM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant in O.P. 84/1999 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The case set up by the complainant was turned down by the Forum.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant/appellant that she purchased a Minalta Photo Copier from the second opposite party who was the dealer for a total consideration of Rs. 1,35,000. The manufacturer is the 1st opposite party. The machine was installed on 27.5.1995 and within one week the machine developed defects. Frequently the defects have to be rectified. Thereafter on 19.1.1996 the complainant entered into Meter Charge Maintenance Agreement (hereinafter to be mentioned as MCMA) with the opposite party on payment of Rs. 10,000. As per the complainant she has to pay paise 30 per copy to the respondent and it was undertaken that the repairs, servicing and replacement of parts, if necessary, will be executed free of cost by the opposite parties. Thereafter also the machine was found to be defective as there appeared black stripe and white patches on the copies, etc. resulting in wastage of paper. The service of the machine by the respondents were not timely or adequate. The machine cannot be worked subsequently. The opposite parties, i.e. M/s. Phil Systems Ltd., has filed a joint version contending that the complainant is running a business concern and hence she cannot be termed as a consumer within purview of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also contended that the proceeding is barred by limitation. According to them servicing was done promptly. It is also contended that a sum of Rs. 2932.80 is due to the opposite parties vide the MCMA.

(3.) THE evidence adduced consisted of testimony of P.W. 1 Ext. A1 to A13, DW 1 and 2; Ext. C1.