Adv. For the Complainant - Self
Adv. For O.P. No. 1 - Sri Bikash Padhan & Others
Adv. For O.P.No.2 - No
Date of filing of the Case - 25.09.2020
Date of Order - 06.10.2023
JUDGMENT
Smt. Jyotsna Rani Mishra Member
Brief Facts of the case -
Complainant is a educated person. He has started his own employment by self employment for earning his livelihood.
He had purchased a printer from OP1 on Dtd. 23.07.2020 vide make and model of the same of HP Laser printer 1200wMFP with an warranty embodied therein for one year from the dt.25 July 2020 to 24 July 2021 and for that he paid an amount of Rs.19000 to the OP1.
-2-
After 1 Month of its purchase during warranty period printer started giving troubles toner level and poor quality printer as such he complained before the Op.1. But he did not register his complain even and denied to him any service which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
Seeing no other alternatives complainant complained before the OP No.2 as he being the service provider and on his complain the OP No.2 came to his premises and varied the same complain and found the same to be true and issued him with a report against the same and assured him to sortout the problem very shortly but it is still pending till yet with out any further response from his side as a result complainant has sustained the loss.
The complainant relies on following documents on support of his case .
- Invoice No.1/295/20-21 issued by OP1.
- Report submitted by OP2.
- And the document with regards to the printer issued by OP1.
Having gone through the complainant its accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant prima facie it seemed to be genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OP was served and in response OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed the written version. On rival contention the OP1 Jain Infotech in its written version averred that there is no prima facie case against the OP1 the complainant is not a consumer . There is no deficiency in service and totally denied the allegation against him in the complainant petition.
The complaint is not maintainable . Hence likely to be dismissed . but in Para-9 Op1. Admitted that complainant came to the showroom of OP1. OP1 check the problem of product and advise him to lodge the complain to the Tollfree no. of company and take the help of the authorized service center. And do not gave any service to the complainant.
Heard the complaint and perused the material on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the OP1 with argument.
And OP2 do not show any interest after getting notice. He has neither appear nor take necessary step so OP2 set to be experte.
After heard of both the parties and carefully gone through the evidence and written version available on record and taking facts and circumstances in to consideration that .
Accordingly to sec 83 CP Act 2019 product liability action may be brought by complainant against a product manufacture or a product service provider or a product seller.
So that the service provided by Ops are free from all defects. Ops are under obligation to provide service to the consumer and are also duty bound to sell defect free product . It is seen from record that after receipt of complaint, the OP2 deputed for service for repair. But even
-3-
after repair the complainant found defect and not solve the problem. So both the parties OP1 and OP2 all jointly and severally liable to compensate him because they committed unfair trade practice coupled with deficiencies of service . Hence Order.
ORDER
The Ops are directed to replace with new printer of same model or returned the price of printer Rs.19000 with 10% interest.
I further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental and physical harassment. And Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the dt. Of order. Failing which the entire amount should be paid by the Op @ 12% per annum from date of filing of case till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY 06th day of October 2023.
