Haryana

Sonipat

203/2014

HIMANSHU CHHAREJA S/O MANOHAR LAL CHHAREJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HP INDIA ,2. SUNRISE ELECTRO SOLUTION - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Hooda

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.203 of 2014

                             Instituted on:21.08.2014

                             Date of order:04.09.2015

 

Himanshu Chhareja son of Manohar Lal Chhareja, r/o H.No.13/859, near Baram Colony, Gali no.5, near Raju Kiryana Store, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.HP India having its Authorized office Building no.2, DLF, Cyber Greet, 1 to 4^th Floor, Tower D&N DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

2.Sunrise Electro Solutions, near Niranari Bhawan, Railway road, Sonepat through its Prop.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Kamal Hooda, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Kuldeep Solanki, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. AK Malik, Adv. for Respt no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased a HP Printer Model 4625 on 30.7.2013 from respondent no.2  with one year warranty.  In the month of 12/2013, the said printer became out of order being cartridge jammed and complaint was made to authorized service station and the said complaint was attended and fault was removed.  But later-on the said printer again became defective as paper jam.  The complainant again made the complaint and the defect was removed on 28.12.2013.  After some days, the printer again became defective on 4.1.2014 and the complainant again made the complaint and the then it was told that the problem of media jammed/some times light blinking/also not sensing actridge and thus, they recommend to replace the said printer and the print was replaced.  After replacement, the said printer wore3d till mid June, 2014 and it also started causing problem.  The complainant made the complaint and the respondents took the printer with them on 24.6.2014, but the said problem was not removed and due to this, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in their written statement has submitted that there is no previty of contract between the respondent no.1 and 2.  The respondent no.1 is not responsible for any kind of assurance if any given by the respondent no.2. There is no manufacturing defect in the printer. All the complaints of the complainant were attended properly.  Treating the complainant’s case as an exceptional one, the printer was replaced.  The complainant now again is adamant for the replacement of the printer with new one with compensation which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The complainant even now could get the issues promptly and efficiently as per applicable warranty policy. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1 since the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that every product have its warranty for a limited period as per terms and conditions of the manufacturer. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       From the contents of the complainant’s complaint, it is gathered that once the printer of the complainant was replaced.  But the complainant again by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents either to repair the printer or to replace the same with new one.

         The stand of the respondent no.1 is that there is no previty of contract between the respondent no.1 and 2.  The respondent no.1 is not responsible for any kind of assurance if any given by the respondent no.2. There is no manufacturing defect in the printer. all the complaints of the complainant were attended properly.  Treating the complainant’s case as an exceptional one, the printer was replaced.  The complainant now again is adamant for the replacement of the printer with new one with compensation which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The complainant even now could get the issues promptly and efficiently as per applicable warranty policy. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent no.1.

         But we find no force in the stand taken by the respondent no.1.  From the documents Annexure C3 and C4, it is established that the printer provided to the complainant was defective due to some manufacturing defects which were unrepairable.  Accordingly, it is held that the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to replace the defective printer with new one and with these observations, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1. 

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced 04.09.2015