Haryana

Ambala

CC/228/2016

Tajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brother International (India) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Mehandirata

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 228 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.05.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  07.11.2016.

 

          Tejinder Singh alias Romy, son of Sh. Tarlok Singh c/o Romy Karyana   Store, Baknaur, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Brother International (India), Private Limited, Unit No. 408, 409, 410, 411,      412, 414, 4th Floor, B-Wing, 215 Atrium, Andheri- Kurla Road, Andheri       (East) Mumbai-400093, through its authorized signatory.

 

2.       Bee Ess Aar Computers, Shop No. 92, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt,    133001, through authorized signatory.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Sh. S.K. Mehndiratta, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ops No. 1 and 2 already exparte v.o.d. 11.07.2016

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Printer make Brother T300, No. E74706CSH619461 from the OP no. 2 in cash, vide bill No. 105 dated 10.06.2015, for Rs. 9900/- in the name of Romy Karyana Store, Baknaur, from the above named respondents which was having 1 years warranty or 30000 prints but very beginning, the printer started giving problems i.e. not printing the page properly. Further submitted that the complainant were made a complaint before respondents and after inspite of sever request, the Ops sent a mechanic and after inspecting the printer detected that there is major manufacturing defect in the printer and he told the complainant that it cannot be removed by repair, except replacing the same but neither the said printer was repaired nor replaced by the respondents. The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 12.04.2016, calling upon them to replace the defective printer with a new one within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of said notice, but neither the Ops replied the said notice nor up till replace the defective printer with a new one.  Hence, the present complaint.

2                 Registered notice issued to Ops No. 1 and 2  but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.07.2016.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.  The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Printer make Brother T300, No. E74706CSH619461 from the OP                    no. 2 in cash, vide bill No. 105 dated 10.06.2015, for Rs. 9900/- (bill as Annexure no C-1) in the name of Romy Karyana Store, Baknaur, from the above named respondents which was having 1 years warranty or 30000 prints vide Annexure No. C-2 which says that:-This warrant covers only the manufacturing defects brought to the support by a cash memo or copy of invoice as evidence of purchase. The warranty is non transferrable. If carried out repairs or replacement of any part by Brother or authorized service centres during warranty period mentioned below, then the warrant shall there after continue only for the unexpired period of the original warrant. All products carry standard one year warranty or 30000 prints from the date of purchase, whichever is earlier. Further averred that in the present case, it is clearly shows that the printer was not functioning properly at initial stage and after checking by their Mechanic, it was found that there was a problem in manufacture due to which the same could not be rectified. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant made the complaint for rectification the problem i.e. not printing the page properly but OP failed to repair the same nor replace the defective parts even then complainant has also served the legal notice to the opposite party through registered A.D. on 12.04.2016 as Annexure C-7 as copy of the postal receipts as C-3 and C-4 but opposite party has not replied the notice. Even, the complainant has filed the present complaint within warranty period. So, the act & conduct of the Ops is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  Since, the Ops have remained exparte and the version of complainant has not been rebutted thus we have no other option except to believe the version of complainant.

5.                In view of above said discussion as well as  facts and circumstances in the present case, the present complaint is liable to be accepted with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      The Ops are directed to either replace the defective printer with a new one of the same model or to refund the total costs of product with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :07.11.2016                                                   Sd/-                                     

                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

                                                                                      Sd/-

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.