CHOCKLINGAM Vs. M AMBA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order dated the 5th August, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in O.P. No. 430 of 1992. By the impugned order the complaint filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The complaint had been filed against opposite parties No. 1 to 3, Regional Sales Manager of Monotype India Ltd., its General Manager and its Managing Director, respectively.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the complaint, the complainants Company, Malandu Printers was a partnership firm originally formed on 24th February, 1983. In February, 1983 -84 the Company purchased Photo Type Setting machine etc. worth Rs. 10,15,093.40 from the opposite parties. The complainant was inducted as a partner in the said firm on 27th December, 1988. The other partners retired from the partnership on 9th February, 1989 and from the said date the complainant took the whole management of the Company. The said change was intimated to the opposite party No. 2, General Manager who vide letter dated the 28th February, 1989 assured the complainant that they would provide service and the best possible co -operation at all times. The machines earlier purchased were functioning on normal working condition when the complainant took management of the Company. The complainant wanted to run the machines more effectively and on the advice of the Regional Sales Manager of the opposite party, the complainant invested in U.P.S. (Undisturbed Power Supply) equipment worth Rs. 60,000/ - and installed the same. The opposite parties are the sole agents for selling, supplying and rendering after sales service of the above machinery in India. The complainant referred to the various pamphlets, booklets, product guides and advertisements published by the opposite party about the quality of the machines and about the after sales service and on the basis of those impressive proclamation the complainant was enthused to purchase the above machine (this allegation of the complainant does not appear to be correct because in 1983 he was not a partner of M/s. Malandu Printers and the previous partners of the said Company have not filed any document to show what impressed them to buy the machine). In May, 1989 the machine at Item No. 1 showed a fault on Prism Box Driver Board in the machine. It was reported to the Regional Sales Manager who took 27 days to rectify the same. The said fault was removed for which Rs. 2,909/ - was charged for service and replacement of parts. The complainant came to know that the delay in attending the repairs was due to the fact that most of the technicians dealing in the machines had deserted the opposite party -Company who did not appoint any suitable technician to rectify the defects. The complainant sent a letter to the manufacturer who is in West Germany. On 5th September, 1989 the same fault again appeared in the machine together with some other faults. The complainant reported the matter to the Regional Sales Manager who had earlier agreed that no charge would be made if the same defect re -occurs. The Regional Sales Manager informed the complainant that an Engineer would be sent by the General Manager. However, the General Manager sent a letter dated the 13th September, 1989 advising the complainant to purchase a similar machine to act as a back up machine to get enough spares or to invest sufficiently in its spares to attend to the defects in the machines. The complainant was also directed not to allow any freelance engineer to attend the machines, as the machines were very sophisticated having minute electronic system. At the same time the opposite party also told the complainant that they cannot keep a stand by engineer/technician to attend the machines in anticipation of the failure in the machines of the complainant. On going through the said letter, the complainant came to the opinion that the manufacturers in West Germany must have sent a copy of the complaint made by him to them to the opposite parties. The conditions imposed by the opposite party amounted to restrictive trade practice. The opposite party also refused to supply details of circuit drawings, diagrams, kits or providing training to the Engineer of the complainant to attend the machines which is contrary to natural justice. On 26th/27th October, 1989, another engineer was sent by the opposite party for rectification of the defects in the machines, but he returned back telling the complainant that he could not bring adjustment board and so he failed to carry out the repairs. On the repeated requests of the complainant a tenhnician was sent on 1st February, 1990 who rectified the defects after 4 months and 25 days. While the machines were thus running with the utmost efforts of the complainant a further defect occurred in machines mentioned at Items Nos. 1 and 2 on 5th June, 1990. This was reported to the 1st opposite party on the same day but he has failed to attend the defects. The opposite party claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for inspecting the machine and another sum of Rs. 8,500/ - towards the Engineers travel expenses and visiting charges. The opposite party also told the complainant that Malandu Printers had to pay the out standing balance of Rs. 12,125.84 on account of its debit notes for the year 1986. The opposite party said that unless the payment was made they will not attend to the service of the machine.

(3.) THE complainants case is that even if the spare parts are so purchased there would be no one to fix the same in the machines. The opposite parties are the only authorised and responsible persons in India to undertake any service or attend to any defect in the machines sold by them. The opposite party also informed the complainant vide letter dated the 6th April, 1991 that there was no service agreement when the machines were sold and they could not be held responsible for non -working of the machines or for anyloss suffered by the complainant. According to the complainant the opposite parties are bound to provide after sales service for all times to come and for failure to do so the opposite party is guilty of negligence and deficiency of service. The complainant limited his claim in the complaint for Rs. 10 lakhs though according to him he was entitled to Rs. 16,41,514.25, the details of which have been given in the complaint.