XEROX INDIA LTD. Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 7/7/2022 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (in short, 'State Commission') dismissing First Appeal No. A/193/2014.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased a color xerox machine from the petitioner on 11/12/2010 on payment of Rs.2,68,000.00 for his livelihood, since he runs a business in the name of M/s Ratna Printers in Kendujhar, Orissa (also known as Keonjhar) as the manufacturer of the xerox machine. The petitioner executed the Full Maintenance Service Agreement (FSMA) with the respondent. The said machine had malfunctioned on 10/12/2011 and the respondent had lodged a complaint which was satisfactorily rectified under the FSMA by the petitioner. Thereafter another complaint was lodged on 20/1/2012 regarding the malfunctioning of the machine. This complaint was also duly attended to by the petitioner's technician including replacement of the parts. However, the respondent did not sign the Service Call Note (SCN) and insisted that the machine be replaced. On 27/3/2012 respondent no.1 issued a legal notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner herein had failed to rectify the problem of 'Ghost Image' in the print quality and asked for the issue to be resolved. The petitioner, vide reply dtd. 9/7/2012, informed respondent no.1 that the problem was occurring since the machine was being used for graphic arts application. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed a consumer complaint no. 64 of 2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendujhar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and respondent no.2. The complaint was contested by the petitioner on the grounds that the complainant was not a consumer with the terms of the Act and that the grievances raised had been addressed from time to time and that the machine was being used for the purpose that it was not designed for. The District Forum, vide its order dtd. 27/12/2013, held that that said machine had been purchased by the complainant for his livelihood and it could therefore not be said that it was purchased for commercial purpose. It was also held that the petitioner had failed to remove the defects despite attending to the complaints on two occasions and they did not come forward to remove the defects which rendered the present petitioner and respondent no.2 to be jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. It therefore ordered as under:

(3.) This order was appealed by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission considered the fact that the machine had suffered from defects within the warranty period. The Commission had itself had the machine examined by an expert and his report dtd. 6/1/2015 that the machine had become defective was also considered. Accordingly, the State Commission proceeded to pass the following order: