Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

            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.