Malaya Kumar Sarangi filed a consumer case on 15 Jan 2018 against Arun Kumar Dey in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/101/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Feb 2018.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
C.C. No.101/2017
Malay Kumar Sarangi,
At/PO:Dalijoda Brahmapur,
Via:Charbatia,P.S:Choudwar,
Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
Arun Kumar Dey, Proprietor,
M/s. Computer Professional,
(Near Jagannath Petrol Pump),
Link Rod,PO:Arunodaya Nagar,
Dist:Cuttack. … Opp. Party.
Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.
Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.
Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).
Date of filing: 22.08.2017
Date of Order: 15.01.2018
For the complainant: Mr. K.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P. : None.
Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.
The case of the complainant is against deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
1. Shortly the case is that the complainant purchased a H.P. colour printer GT-5810(All in one setting) from the O.P on 19.03.2017 vide invoice No.15381 for Rs.10,600/-.(Annexure-1). After 8 days of purchase, the printer developed some problem and the O.P was intimated accordingly. As advised by the O.P. the complainant lodged a complaint with the customer care of the company through telephone but no step was taken for repair of the said printer. The complainant collected address of customer care unit from HP Website & issued the notice to them but the said notice returned back.(Annexure-2). The complainant failed to repair the said printer in spite of one year warranty available for the purpose.(Annexure-3). Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum. He has prayed to direct the O.P to replace the printer, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and loss of business and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The O.P neither attended the hearing nor filed any written version and was set exparte on 01.12.2017.
3. We have gone through the case records in details. The complainant purchased a printer from the O.P on payment of Rs.10,600/- on 19.03.2017. The printer developed some problem and the O.P was contacted. Legal notice was also issued to the O.P. The O.P did not attend the hearing and no written version was also filed by the O.P. Thus we conclude that the O.P has nothing to say further on the matter. The O.P also neither cooperated the complainant nor taken the matter with the manufacturer or service provider to solve the problem of the complainant rather he has turned a deaf year to the problem of the complainant.
But neither the manufacturer of the product nor the service provider for the product was made necessary party(s) by the complainant. The prayer of the complainant is to replace the printer and to provide compensation for non-repair which is the responsibility of the manufacturer and service provider of the product. The retailer/dealer cannot be solely responsible for such deficiencies.
In our view the manufacturer and service provider are also necessary parties to the present case whereas the complainant has not made them parties. Thus it is case of non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence the case has no merit and needs to be dismissed.
ORDER
Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the case be and the same is dismissed against the O.P.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 15th day of January,2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member.
( Sri D.C.Barik )
President.
(Smt. Sarmistha Nath)
Member(W)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.