..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainants :- Smt. M. Mishra, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- In person.
For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri S.Mishra(A), Advocate with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.25/06/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainants is that the Complainants are partners of M/s Sahu Online Centre and has been running the Job Work Centre to earn livelihood. The Complainants on Dt.29-06-2022 has purchased one Canon Printer G3010, Model No. G3000, Sl No. FNNFI8832 and had paid ₹ 13,305.08/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred five and eight paise)only to the Opposite Party No.3(three) and also paid ₹ 2,966.10/-(Rupees two thousand nine hundred sixty six and ten paise)only for one lamination machine. For both the aforesaid products the Opposite Party No.3(three) has issued invoice of ₹ 19,200/-(Rupees nineteen thousand two hundred)only with warranty period of one year. After the purchase the printer started giving problems on Dt.18-10-2022, 07-01-2023, 17-01-2023 and 08-04-2023 for which information was given to Opposite Party No.2(two) through Opposite Party No.3(three). The service engineer of Opposite Party No.2(two) has attended the printer, replaced about four times heads and 9(nine) times the entire parts of the printer has been changed. On 16-04-2023 the printer again started giving problem for which the Complainants deposited with Opposite Party No.3(thee) on Dt.18-04-2023. On Dt.06-0-2023 the Opposite Party No.3(three) when contacted by the Complainants said that the replacement cannot be made and only extended warranty can be extended. Due to the manufacturing defect in the printer the Complainants have to suffer a lot for the deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the Complainants filed complaint before this Commission and prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to replace the Colour Printer machine which is sole earning basis of the Complainants or in the alternative refund ₹ 13,305.08/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred five and eight paise)only to the complainants, ₹ 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) only towards compensation for loss and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation cost.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) filed version and submitted that on Dt.29-06-2022 the Complainants purchased a Canon printer bearing Model No. G3000 and Serial No. KNNF18832 for an amount of ₹ 13,305.08/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred five and eight paise)only from the Opposite Party No.3(three). The warranty provided by the Opposite Parties is a limited period warranty and is valid for a period of one years from the date of purchase. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party No.3(three) is the reseller from whom the Complainants have purchased the said printer. The Opposite Party is not responsible for any act and /or ommission of the dealers/resellers. The Opposite Parties have also submitted a tabular chart regarding service and stated that the service calls logged by the Complainants were duly attended by the customer care and the problem was fixed to the satisfaction of the Complainants. On all occasions the said printer was diagnosed and repaired under warranty and the printer was working fine. There is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. After the last service and diagnose there was no defect in the printer, accordingly the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Parties.
3) The case of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2(two) is not the manufacturer nor the seller of the printer. There is no cause of action against Opposite Party No.2(two).
4) The case of Opposite Party No.3(three) is that the Opposite Party No.3(three) is not the authorized dealer of the M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. During the period of warranty the company is responsible for removal of defects in the product. The Opposite Party No.3(three) has got no liability to remove or repair any defects of the product, the Opposite Party No.3(three) has taken about nine times to solve the same and the Opposite Party No.3(three) is the shop owner to sell the product, there lies no deficiency service on the part of the Opposite Party. The case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.3(three).
5) Perused the entire record along with oral arguments and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the product is defective or not ?
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1(one)
6) The Complainants on Dt.29-06-2022 has purchased one Canon Printer bearing Model No. G3000 and Serial No. KNNF18832 from the Opposite Party No. 3(three) and during the warranty period on Dt.05-08-2022 the problem in the printer was detected. Further the tabular chart of Service Engineer from Dt. 05-08-2022, 18-10-2022, 19-10-2022, 07-01-2023, 17-01-2023, 27-02-2023, 08-04-2023, 16-04-2023, 19-05-2023 and 24-05-2023 itself reflects that problems occurred in the aforesaid printer under the warranty period and it is proved that the product supplied is a defective one.
The law is well settled that if the product could not be repaired despite several attempts of repairs then it is a defective product.
Issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
7) It has been admitted by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No. 3(three) that during the warranty the problem occurred in the printer. The Opposite Party No.2(two) in many times has replaced the parts of the printer, it is the duty of Opposite Party No.1(one) to replace the printer but the Opposite Party No.1(one) failed to do so. The Opposite Party No.3(three) has admitted that the aforesaid printer is with him, it is the duty of Opposite Party No.3(three) to communicate with the Complainants regarding the delivery of the printer but the Opposite Party No.3(three) remained silent.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is deficient in service as well as adopted unfair trade practice by not rectifying the problem permanently when the aforesaid printer is in the warranty period as well as Opposite Party No.3(three) remained silent after receiving the printer from Opposite Party No.2(two).
Issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3(three)
8) In Vinoo Bhagat Vrs General Motors (India) Ltd and Another, First Appeal No. 150/1998, decided on 30-01-2003, the Hon'ble Apex Commission held that “when manufacturer/dealer fails to rectify the defect despite given reasonable opportunities, thus the order or direction to refund or replacement of product is correct”. For deficiency in service by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three) the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
9) The complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to refund the price of printer i.e. ₹ 13,305.08/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred five and eight paise)only with 9%(nine percent) interest per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 29-06-2022 till the date of this order to the Complainants. Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.3(thee) are jointly and severally liable to pay ₹ 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only for deficiency in service and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainants. All the above order to be complied within thirty days, failing which the entire order shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
10) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.25/06/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three) and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
