Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/363/2023

ROHIT AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BROTHER INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

NAVJOT SINGH

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/363/2023
Date of Institution	:	23/07/2023
Date of Decision	:	01/04/2024

 

Rohit Aggarwal son of Sh. Satya Narain Aggarwal aged about 31 years, presently residing at H.No.403, Tower 3, Highland Park Homes (High-rise), Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Brother International India Private Limited, Unit No.801 & 802, 8^th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400076 through its Managing Director. (Head Office).
2. Brother International India Private Limited, B32, Lajpat Nagar 2, New Delhi-110024 through its Regional Manager. (Regional Office).
3. Creative Sales, SCO-46, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through is Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Navjot Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Rohit Aggarwal, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that OPs 1 & 2 are in the business of printers since 1971. The complainant is an advocate by profession and, in order to meet his specific requirements regarding printer, he visited the shop of OP-3 for the purchase of a printer.  The complainant had specifically explained his requirement of printer to OP-3 who suggested to purchase printer (Model No.DCP L2541DW) (hereinafter referred to as “subject Printer”) of Brother International Private Limited, which fulfilled all the requirements of the complainant qua legal printing, legal page scanning, legal PDF, legal duplex printing, affordable/reasonable cartridge and Wi-Fi printing command.  Accordingly, complainant purchased the subject printer by paying an amount of ₹25,600/- through his credit card and OP-3 had issued invoice dated 16.10.2022 (Annexure C-1).  It was assured to the complainant at that time that the executive of OPs 1 & 2 will visit his workplace for installation of the printer and he will also provide demo/briefing of the printer. Accordingly, on 17.10.2022 Vikram Singh, executive of OPs 1 & 2 visited the house of complainant for the aforesaid purpose. However, complainant was shocked when aforesaid Vikram Singh apprised him that the subject printer cannot print double sided legal printing and its cartridge cannot be re-filled and further informed that new cartridge will cost ₹3,200/- every time.  The complainant had explained to OP-3 about his requirements and only on its assurances, he had purchased the subject printer by spending huge amount. Being un-satisfied, complainant approached OP-3 alongwith the printer and raised his query, but, instead of redressing his grievance, OP-3 started misbehaving with complainant. On this, complainant had lodged a complaint vide email (Annexure C-2) with OPs 1 & 2 about the act of OP-3, but, nothing has been done by the OPs till date. In this manner, aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.9.2023.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/ proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that he had purchased the subject Printer from the OPs through OP-3 for total sale consideration of ₹25,600/-, as is also evident from the invoice (Annexure C-1) and the complainant came to know that contrary to the assurances given by OP-3, the subject Printer was not having facility of double sided/duplex printing as well as re-filling of the cartridge, rather he had to purchase new cartridge every time by spending an amount of ₹3,200/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. Perusal of invoice (Annexure C-1) indicates that on 16.10.2022, complainant had purchased the subject printer, manufactured by OPs 1 & 2, from OP-3 for total sale consideration of ₹25,600/-.  Annexure C-2 is the complaint lodged by the complainant with OPs 1 & 2 vide email dated 19.10.2022 that he was firstly assured by OP-3 that the subject Printer will meet out all his requirements including legal printing, legal page scanning, legal PDF, legal duplex printing, affordable/reasonable cartridge and Wi-Fi printing command and only after installation of the subject Printer by the executive of OPs 1 & 2 it was found by the complainant that out of the aforementioned facilities, the subject Printer did not have the feature of double sided/duplex printing as well as re-filling of the cartridge.  It is further the case of complainant that the OPs have not given any response to his aforesaid complaint (Annexure C-2).
   3. Since the entire evidence led by the complainant qua non-fulfilment of certain requirements of the complainant, which were assured by the OPs to the complainant through OP-3, as discussed above, stands proved through his affidavit and till date OPs have neither replaced the subject Printer nor have refunded the amount paid, the aforesaid act certainly amounts to deficiency in service deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the same is unrebutted by the OPs.
   4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to take back the subject printer from the complainant and refund the amount of ₹25,600/- to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 16.10.2022 onwards.
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

01/04/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member