DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.133/2021

Sh. Biswajit Das

S/o Bipra Charan Das

R/o General Manager-4/115, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi- 110029                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd.

Through its directors

Unit No. 214 to 218, 2nd Floor,

Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001                           

        ….Opposite Party

  Date of Institution    : 25.03.2021

  Date of Order          : 30.10.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. Umesh Kr. Tyagi, Member

Order

Member – Kiran Kaushal

This Complaint is at initial stage.

The Complainant on strength of his complaint prays for direction to OP to replace the defective and damaged Printer-2015 with the brand new canon printer of similar performance without any additional cost to the complainant. It is also prayed that compensation of Rs.25,000,00/- should be awarded to the complainant for his suffering huge damage cost, loss of opportunity, loss of reputation, mental agony, etc.

            The instant complainant is filed by the complainant who purchased a new heavy duty colour Canon printer iR-ADV-2225 (herein after referred to as Printer-2015) on 19/10/2015 by paying the consideration of Rs.2,35,253/-. It is averred that the complainant after having used the printer for 3 years started to experience deterioration in its performance. The same was conveyed to M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (OP) but to no avail. It is also stated that in the mean time it came to the knowledge of the complainant from various sources including from the officials of OP that due to the ubiquitous unprecedented problems arising out of this said defective series and model of the Printer-2015 OP had decommissioned and discontinued this model and series world over. Thereafter, the complainant asked OP to replace the faulty and defective printer but only received repeated friendly assurances from OP from time to time.

            It is further averred that OP having decided not to replace the printer simply dragged them to the end of 5 year service agreement period which was due to expire on 30/06/2020. Aggrieved by the circumstances above OP approached this commission for redressal of his grievance.

We have heard the complainant and have gone through the file carefully.

            From the pleadings it is noticed that the Complainant had purchased the first printer from OP in 2012. This printer was shifted from Complainant’s Delhi office to his Bhubaneswar office. However, when the Printer-2012 was delivered at Bhubaneswar office, it was completely damaged and in a condition beyond repair. Therefore, OP had replaced the damaged Printer-2012 by one second hand heavy duty Canon printer IR-ADVC-1513 in the year 2016 (Printer-2016). But as the Printer-2016 did not function properly to the standards promised by OP it was further replaced with a second hand Black & White printer in the year 2018. As per the complainant Printer-2018 also never worked as per its promised standards and is lying unutilized at Bhubaneswar office alongwith Printer-2016.

            The complainant had initially instituted a complaint on 06/11/2020 filed as Consumer Complainant No.207/20 wherein notice was issued to OP. However, the Complainant withdrew the Complaint on the ground that the said Consumer complaint was filed ‘without annexing the main documents’.  

Study of the documents subsequently filed in Consumer Complaint No.133/21 amount to hara-kiri attempt which has exposed the Complainant’s design of misleading the Commission. It may be noticed that the documents are intended to confuse the commission between two different Cause of Actions. The documents now introduced with the complaint pertain to a different printer than the one for which this complaint had been preferred.

The complainant first communicated his grievance in writing to OP after he was asked to do so vide order dated 08/07/2021 of this Commission. The documents filed thereafter show that his first mail to OP regarding the regular breakdown and replacement of Printer-2015 was on 17/10/2019. The said fact proves that the printer which was purchased on 19/10/2015 was functioning fine till October 17, 2019 for approximately 4 years.

It is also noticed that the Complaint seems to have been actuated not for the deficiency alleged rather it seems to have been filed when his request of getting the Printer-2018 (subsequent replacement of Printer-2012) replaced was not acceded to. It was during this period that the complainant has alleged that his Printer-2015 after a period of 3 years that is in 2018 stopped functioning properly. Coincidently, it was around that time that the Complainant claims to have gained the knowledge that the Printer-2015 model and series have been decommissioned and discontinued. No document has been adduced by the complainant to substantiate the fact that Printer-2015 series have been decommissioned and discontinued.  

In view of the facts mentioned above we dismiss this complaint in limine with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.