JYOTI AGRAWAL Vs. BRANCH MANAGER KORES INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the petitioner before us. By the impugned order dated 15.9.1999 Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the order of the District Forum which in turn had dismissed the complaint.

(2.) COMPLAINANT-petitioner purchased a photo copier from the opposite party-respondents and alleged deficiency in service that the photo copier was not giving good results and had certain manufacturing defects. Petitioner filed his complaint before the District Forum. Before the District Forum it was submitted by the respondents there was no defect in the machine and that these allegations were made in order to provide an excuse for non-payment of the instalment of loans to the Central Bank of India from which the petitioner had taken a loan for purchase of the photo copier. It was pointed out that whatever the complaints, these were attended to by the respondent and in the service cards it was never mentioned that there was any defect in the machine. Moreover, it was submitted that even after period of warranty had expired complaints, if any, were looked after by respondents. This was on the assurance that the respondent would get the service contract extended for a further period of one year. This was, however, not done. Petitioner used the photo copier for 1 years and took out over 1.00 lakh copies. There was no ground thus for the petitioner to seek replacement of the machine. District Forum after examining the whole aspect of the matter dismissed the complaint. As noted above, order of the District Forum was upheld by the State Commission. We do not find it a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.