VENUS COMPUGRAPHICS Vs. DIRECTOR ZENITH TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The Complainant is a partnership firm carrying on business of Laser Printer. The 1st opposite party supplied one "ti (TEXAS) MICRO LASER PRINTER PS-35" in March, 1991 for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. Due to some technical snag, the system did not function in the month of July, 1992. It was sent to the 2nd Opposite Party, which is the Sister concern of the 1st Opposite Party, for repairs on 8/7/92. The 2nd Opposite Party referred it to the 3rd Opposite Party, which is the another sister concern. The Complainant was asked to change some parts and a sum of Rs.16020/- collected there for. The 3rd Opposite Party, in addition, collected service charge of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. The Laser Printer was reinstalled on 5.11.92. But on 11.11.92, it again went out of order and sent back for repairs. It was returned on 20.11.92 by the 3rd Opposite Party to the Complainant. Again, it was sent back for service on 23.11.92. Since then, it is lying with the 3rd Opposite Party. It has not taken care to rectify the defects and return the Laser in a good order. Hence, this complaint for directing the Opposite Parties to return the Laser after duly repairing the same or to supply a new Laser, preferrably in a sound working condition, to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards business loss, Rs.75,000/- for hardships, sufferings, pain and agony with interest.

(3.) The 3rd opposite party has filed a counter on behalf of the opposite parties. It is contended that the Complainant is not a consumer, as the Laser has been purchased for a commercial purpose. The Laser has been purchased in the month of March, 1991 and the complaint filed on 26.5.1993 is barred by time. The complaint as against the 3rd opposite party is not maintainable, as it has not sold the Laser. There is no Maintenance Contract with the 3rd Opposite Party. It is denied that the 3rd Opposite Party refused to deliver the Laser. But, it is the Complainant who has deliberately not chosen to take delivery. The 3rd Opposite Party is willing to do the repairs and deliver the Laser on payment of costs.