Haryana

Sonipat

17/2014

SAGAR S/O DHARAM PAL MOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S GOYAL ELECTRO SOLUTION,2. REDINGTON INDIA LTD. ,3. H.P. COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. MALIK

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.17 of 2014

                                Instituted on:14.01.2014

                                Date of order:17.12.2015

 

Sagar son of Dharam Pal, resident of village Baroda Mor, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.M/s Goyal Electro Solutions, shop no.1, near Municipal Committee office, tehsil road, Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its proprietor.

2.M/s Redington India Ltd. C/ INS Telecom Shop no.2, Bishan Sarup Colony, near Hotel Deep, Panipat through its Prop/Director (authorized service centre).

3.HP Company, 39/40, Electronic City, Benglore, Karnatka, through its Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JP Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 03.12.2015.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte on 28.5.2015.

           Respondent no.3 on 10.7.2015.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.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 purchased a printer model HP-1050 from respondent no.1 vide bill no.2305 for Rs.3550/- with one year warranty.  In the month of 7/2013, there arose fault in the said print. The complainant approached the respondent no.1, who further asked the complainant to lodge the complaint with customer care, which he did.  But till date, none of the mechanic has come to the premises of the complainant for removal of the fault of the printer and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 has appeared and filed its reply. Whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.5.2015. 

          Respondent no.3 was given up on 10.7.2015 by the ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement.

          In reply filed on 15.5.2014 the respondent no.1 has submitted that the printer was sold in intact condition as was received form the company. The respondent no.1 has not given any warranty on his behalf as alleged by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.  The respondent no.1 after filing of the reply, was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.12.2015.

3.         We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the printer sold by the respondent no.1 to the complainant was defective and even on complaint, the faults of the printer has not been removed.

           The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the printer was sold in intact condition as was received form the company. The respondent no.1 has not given any warranty on his behalf as alleged by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondent no.1.

          But we find no force in this contention of the respondent no.1, because it was the duty of the respondents to repair the fault of the printer when it was not possible for them to replace the defective unit with new one.  Non-repairing of the printer within warranty period definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to replace the defective printer of the complainant with new one and if the defective printer is in the possession of the complainant, in that event, the complainant shall return the same to the respondents alongwith all its accessories.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- in all for rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Thus, the respondents are directed to hand over the new printer to the complainant upto the price of Rs.4500/- (Rs.3500/- price of the old defective printer and Rs.1000/- as compensation).

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

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

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 17.12.2015