BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 26th day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 134/07
Between:
- Veerendra, Balaji Pan Shop,
Under Saibaba Temple, Adoni, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
- Proprietor, R.K. Solutions,
Shop No.10,11,12, Ucon Plaza, Old Navarang Theatre, Park Road, Kurnool.
- The Manager, M/s. HP India Sales Private Limited,
Ground Floor, Dega Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. P. Sunkanna, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.134-07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 11 & 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to return the price of H.P Printer Rs.12,900/- with interest , Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony , cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs, which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant's case is that the complainant on seeing the advertisement in leading newspapers that opposite parties are selling printers, Xerox machines and scanners purchased HP office Jet 6318 printer instead of Xerox machine believing the words of opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,900/- on 11-11-2006 and one year warranty card was issued . The opposite parties promised that the printer would give 500 to 600 copies per one cartridge. Thereafter five days the said printer failed to function and it was giving only 100 copies and not performing as per opposite parties promised standard . The complainant send a notice to opposite party, through Consumer Welfare Society, Adoni on 20-11-2006 , the opposite party No.1 received the said notice but did not reply. Thereafter, the complainant personally approached opposite party No.1 and demanded for return of money but opposite party No.1 refused. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated 6-12-2006 and the opposite parties even though received the said notice did not reply . The above attitude of the opposite parties constrained the complainant and seek redressal in the forum.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) cash bill dated 11-11-2006 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant for Rs.12,900/- , (2) office copy of legal notice dated 6-12-2006 along with two courier receipts, (3) letter dated 20-11-2006 of complainant addressed to consumer welfare society, Adoni, and (4) Xerox copy of letter dated 20-11-2006 of consumer welfare society, adoni addressed to opposite party No.1 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version , the opposite party No.2 remained absent throughout the case proceedings and were made exparte on 21-2-2008.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant purchased HP Printer for Rs.12,900/- and no warranty was issued to the said printer and no promise was made that the said printer would give 500 to 600 copies per one cartridge and the opposite party No.1 never assured that the amount would be refunded in case the machine will not function properly and this opposite party No.1 is only a dealer to sell HP printer. It further submits that the complainant in this case seeking only for refund of cost of the machine and not seeking for getting the printer serviced , because his business was not in encouraging mood , if the printer was not working properly he would have effecting if it proper service and not for refund the cost of printer. On approach by the complainant the opposite party clarified that they will provide services to the machine if any problem arises and no refund of amount will be given. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- is excessive and cannot ordered. The company i.e. opposite party No.2 will not accept the return of used printer but he will attend for service if necessity arises and the company no where promised that the printer would given 500 to 600 copies per one cartridge and the opposite party No.1 suitable replied to the letter dated 20-11-2006 of consumer welfare society, Adoni and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. The opposite party in support of their case did not file any documents and relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in reiteration of his written version averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the simple case of the complainant that he purchased a H.P printer from opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,900/- vide Ex.A1, he further alleges that the printer was not working properly and not giving 500 to 600 copies per catridge as promised by opposite party No.1. On the other side the opposite party No.1 submits that they have not promised that the said printer would give 500 to 600 copies per cartridge and the complainant is only stating that the printer is not working properly and no where mentioned what are the defects in it. At the outset it as seen from the complaint averments, the first contention of the complainant is that the printer was not working properly, but nothing is mentioned regarding the defects in the said printer and further the complainant did not place any such material to show that there are defects in the printer. It is clear from the above that there are no defects in the said printer. The second contention of the complainant in his complaint averments is that the said printer was having one year warranty, but no such warranty is placed on record for perusal. Hence this contention of the complainant is also rejected. The third contention of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 promised that the said printer would give 500 to 600 copies per catridge , but when in use the said printer was giving below 100 copies , but the complainant did not place any such cogent material form where it could be drawn that the said printer would give 500 to 600 copies per catridge , when it was specifically denied by the opposite parties also , the complainant did not choose to file any such cogent substantiating material in support of his contention. In the absence of such material it cannot be said that the said printer will give 500 to 600 copies per catridge.
9. To sum up the above discussion as the complainant utterly failed to substantiate, the contentions taken by him in his complaint averments and in the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the printer purchased by the complainant was not working properly and not giving 500 to 600 copies per catridge . Hence, the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought, and the complaint is dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of July, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash bill, dated 11-11-2006 for Rs.12,900/- issued by OP.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice, dated 6-12-2006 along with
two courier receipts as to receipt of legal notice.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 20-11-2006 of complainant addressed to
Consumer Welfare Society Adoni.
Ex.A4. Copy of letter, dated 20-11-2006 of consumer society , Adoni
addressed to opposite party No.1
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
