Date of Filing: 13.11.2014 Date of Final Order: 22.05.2015
The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant being a proprietor of a Studio purchased one CANON inkjet all-in-one mp-287 printer on 14.11.2013 for his studio. Thereafter, on 24.06.2014 the machine did not work properly accordingly from O.P. No. 2 the Complainant changed the Cartridge on 20.07.2014 against payment of Rs. 582/- but the problem was not cured. The Complainant further made complain being complaint No.1013646 on 24.09.2014 but no service rendered by the O.P. No.2. After that the Complainant again made complain being complaint No. 1024007 and on 21. 10. 2014 the technical staff of the O.P. No. 2 reached to his shop and changed the Cartridge but even after changing the Cartridge the picture was not clear and opined that the machine itself is defective and not possible to cure the problem. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the opposite Parties did not pay any heed towards the said problem and the Complainant deprived from doing his business since a long period, which caused severe pecuniary loss and thus the Complainant has filed the present case alleging Deficiency in Service against the Opposite Parties seeking redress and relief as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Complainant has filed the present case on 13.11.2014 with one I.P.O. of Rs.100/- against the complaint value of Rs.44,500/-. Accordingly, DF Case No. 79/2014 registered and after hearing of admission, the case was admitted for further proceeding.
The notices were issued to the O.Ps. But the O.P No. 2 did not appear despite receiving the notice and the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No. 1 appeared through Ld. Agent and contesting the case by filing Written Version, contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law. The petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. The main contention of this O.P. is that, in the complaint petition the Complainant never alleged deficiency in service of this answering O.P. Further, it is admitted that the Complainant purchased one printer from this O.P. and never move to his shop with any complain as to the said printer. This complaint also has no cause of action. Putting all this and denying all most all the allegations this O.P. prayed for dismissal of this case with cost.
In the light of the contention of above facts the following points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Whether the Opposite Parties have any deficiency in service by not replacing the alleged printer of the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed/original documents in the record also heard argument in full advanced by the parties.
Point No.1.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased a Printer from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 29.05.2014 with payment of Rs. 3,800/- and the Opposite Party issued a Tax Invoice in favour of the Complainant as such we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite Parties as per section 2 (1) d (ii) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2.
Both the complainant and the O.P. No. 1 are residents of this district and the O.P. No. 1 carrying on business within the district of Cooch Behar. The complaint valued at Rs. 44,500/- at valorem which is within prescribed limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No.3.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased one Canon Printer from the O.P No. 1 on payment of Rs. 3,800/- on 14.11.2013. It is the case of the Complainant that since after purchase the said machine it started various problems which also admitted by the O.P. No. 2. It appears from the Annexure “2” that the O.P. No. 2 received the said printer for servicing on 01.07.2014 with a problem, “Paper Jam” but the engineer of the servicing center identified the problem of Cartridge that was not covered under warranty. Annexure 3 reveals that the said set again started problem and brought to the O.P. No. 2 on 20.07.2014 with same problem and after servicing the Complainant received the same being completely satisfied and remarked by engineer that the Printer working properly. Further problem cropped up within a very short period and again the machine sent to the O.P. No. 2 for servicing. The O.P. No. 2 gave proper service, the Cartridge replaced on 21.10.2012 but the problem remains the same.
It is the case of the Complainant that even after three/four time servicing the machine i.e. the Printer did not work properly and for which he wanted to cash back facility but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased the Canon Printer from the O.P. No. 1. After cropped up the disorder in the machine the Complainant brought the notice to the O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 being the service centre rendered proper service to the Complainant as and when he was needed.
It is pertinent point to mention that the Complainant failed to file Warranty Card for which it cannot be derive that the printer of the Complainant in question was started problem within the warranty period and for this reason the Complainant entitled to demand the replacement or the cost of the said printer from the O.P.
It is settled principal that if any goods purchased with inherent defect the buyer can get replacement or the cost of the said goods only within the warranty period if the defect proved.
In the present case the Complainant purchased the printer from the O.P. No. 1 and when the problem cropped up the O.P. No. 2 being service provider rendered proper service but even after servicing the problem not cured. The O.P. No. 1 being a seller as well as dealer has responsibility to replace the printer. But in absence of the warranty card we are not in a position to hold that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Point No.4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the foregoing discussion we are in a considered opinion that the Complainant is badly failed to prove his case by not adducing cogent documents.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.79/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
