State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Mridula Mojumder vs The Konica Minolta Business ... on 29 January, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/984/2012 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/11/2012 in Case No. CC/193/2011 of District North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat) 1. Smt. Mridula Mojumder W/o Sri Gobinda Prosad Mojumder, Prop. of Trinayanee Infotech, 67/1, Old Calcutta Road, P.O. Talpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24 Pgs., Barrackpore, Kolkata - 700 123. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Konica Minolta Business Technologies, INC Konica Minolta Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 10th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Building No.8, Tower-C, Phase-II, Gurgaon - 122 002, Haryana, India. 2. The Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Block-GN, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 091 & Regd. Office - Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai - 400 079. 3. The Infres Methodex Ltd. 9/2B, Talbagan Lane, Ground Floor, Orient Row, Park Circus, Kolkata - 700 017. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sudhibrata Banerjee, Mr. Brarun Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Abhik Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. S. Chatterjee, Advocate ORDER 29.01.2015 MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON'BLE MEMBER
The instant Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.No. 193/2011, dismissing the Petition of Complaint on the ground of the same being baseless.
The facts of the case as emanating from the materials on records, are, in brief, that the Complainant/Appellant, who is the proprietress of M/s. Trinayanee Infortech, purchased, following a quotation dated 20.2.08, a "KM C253 Multifunction Printer (Item Code 06987383)" together with its accessories from M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. being the OP No. 2, an authorized distributor on the date of purchase of The Konica Minolta Business Technologies Inc., Japan, being the OP No. 1, under Purchase Invoice No. 801/87006212 dated 3.4.2008 against the total consideration of Rs. 2,91,200.00 which was paid by cheques on obtaining loan from Bank of Baroda, Barrackpur Branch as claimed, with the terms of warranty for three months or 50000 copies whichever was earlier from the date of installation, i.e. 7.4.2008, for maintaining 'normal livelihood' of the Complainant as averred in the Petition of Complaint. After purchase, the Complainant/Appellant came to know that the distributorship of the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 expired on 31.3.2008. Then, after a series of email to the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1, the Complainant/Appellant was advised by the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 to contact their other distributor, i.e. the Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3, for after-sale service of the said printer. Thereafter, when contacted for service the Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 demanded higher charges for services. However, meanwhile, i.e. on 23.6.2011, the said printer went out-of-order completely. At this stage, the life of the purchase of the printer was less than six years and the print-outputs were only 75000 copies, which were far less than those assured in the quotation dated 29.2.2008 by the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2, that is, six years and 600000 copies. After such complete breakdown of the printer in question neither the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 nor the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 nor even the Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 rendered after-sale services to the Appellant/Complainant. Because of the failure in rendering after-sale services on the part of the Respondents/Ops the Complainant/Appellant moved the Petition of Complaint before the Ld. District Forum which dismissed the Petition of Complaint on the ground of the same being baseless. Dissatisfied with such judgment and order the Complainant/Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant submits that the said printer was purchased for operating the same by the Appellant/Complainant herself by taking loan from Bank of Baroda for 'earning livelihood of the Appellant/Complainant by means of self-employment'. It was also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that after purchase, when there was dire necessity of after-sale services of the printer from the selling dealer, i.e. Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2, the selling dealer did not render any service as their distributorship stood cancelled prior to the date of purchase, which the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 did not disclose at the time of purchase. The Ld. Advocate further submits that at this juncture, after running from pillar to post and many a email correspondences, the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 advised the Appellant/Complainant to contact their another distributor, i.e. Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 for services, which rendered the services after executing a new agreement, and that too at exorbitant prices. The Ld. Advocate continues that the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 committed unfair trade practice in not disclosing on the date of purchase, i.e. 3.4.2008, the fact of cancellation of distributorship on 31.3.2008, i.e. before the date of purchase. The Ld. Advocate finally submits that from the failure of rendering after-sale services, as assured in the quotation, on the part of the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2, it is established that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/Ops, particularly, on the part of the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 submits that the purchase of the printer was made in the name of M/s. Trinayanee Infotech as appearing on the concerned Purchase Invoice, indicating the purpose of the purchase-transaction in question for commercial purpose and hence, the Complainant is not a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this context, the Ld. Advocate refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 131. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the distributorship of Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1with Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 was cancelled on 31.3.2008 and hence, the Appellant/Complainant was advised to contact their another distributor i.e. Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3, for any service, implying thereby that they were earnest in providing service and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1. The Ld. Advocate further submits that there was no contract for after-sale services between them and the Appellant/Complainant and thus there was no obligation to render any service and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 submits, apart from reiterating the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 as to the commercial purpose of the transactions in question, that as there was no contract/agreement between the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 and the Appellant/Complainant for providing any after-sale services after the warranty period, the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 was under no contractual obligation to provide any after-sale services post warranty period as in the present case. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Respondent No. 2 provided services to the Appellant/Complainant as and when requisitioned during the period of warranty, but as the Appellant/Complainant did not agree with the proposal for annual maintenance contract with the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 for post warranty period, the Appellant/Complainant was legally estopped from enforcing her rights to after-sale services from the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2. In conclusion, the Ld. Advocate repeats the conclusion of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 that the impugned judgment and order should be sustained in view of the facts stated hereinbefore.
None appears for the Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3, nor any BNA was filed by them on the date of final hearing, although the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 was present on the previous occasion.
We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.
The averment in the Petition of Complaint and the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant as to the operation of the printer by the Appellant/Complainant herself reveal that the printer in question was purchased against bank loan for the purpose of earning livelihood of the lady Complainant, suggesting thereby the preponderance of probability of the transaction having been for earning livelihood of the lady proprietress by means of self-employment and thus the Complainant is covered under the Explanation appended to Clause 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Materials on records demonstrate that on the date of purchase of the printer in question, i.e. 3.4.2008, the distributorship of the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 for selling the said machine ceased to exist as the same was cancelled on 31.3.2008, i.e. prior to the date of purchase, but this fact of cessation of existence of distributorship was not disclosed to the Complainant/Appellant-Purchaser on the date of purchase either by the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 or by the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2. By not disclosing the fact of non-existence of distributorship on the date of purchase and resultant non-existence of any obligation to provide any after-sale service to the Complainant/Appellant as argued, the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 committed unfair trade practice in respect of the said transaction of printer in question.
The decision as referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 hereinbefore does not appear to be applicable to the present case, the facts of the said case being not identical with that of the present case as the said case dealt with a brick manufacturing machine to be operated by workmen.
On the foregoing facts and submission we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order.
In the light of the above discussion, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the Complaint is allowed.
The Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 are directed, jointly and/or severally, to pay to the Appellant/Complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Appellant/Complainant. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Appellant/ Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue on the said amount till default. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER