BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.394 of 2016

Date of Instt. 14.09.2016

Date of Decision: 15.03.2017

Jatinder Verma son of Late Sh. Satpal Verma resident of Janak Nagar, Opposite R.K. Tools, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Davinder Saini Prop. of Printer Solutions 239, Ist Floor, Monika Tower, Jalandhar City. ........Opposite party

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite Party in person.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein stated that the complainant hired services of opposite party for the repair of the HP 1018 Printer of the complainant and the complainant visited the opposite party business place on 19.08.2016 for the repair of HP 1018 Printer and after inspection the opposite party told the complainant that there was a defect in printing and paper inserted in it, did not obtain the printing words and came blank outside the printer for which the opposite party have advised the complainant that the opposite party have to see the pressure roller, film and power card and would be repaired in few hours and on the same day in the evening the opposite party returned HP Printer to the complainant and repaired the problem and further guaranteed for 15 days that if the same problem would occur the opposite party would repair the printer free of cost and printing slip alongwith the signature of opposite party is attached on the printer to this effect and the complainant paid Rs.800/- for the repair of printer charges and Rs.400/- for purchased of a cartridge of Printer, total Rs.1200/- on 19.08.2016 at 7.15 P.M. To the opposite party. It may be stated here that the said printer has been using by the complainant for his personal use in his house. On the next day the same problem again arises and the complainant approached to the opposite party office again and asked the opposite party to repair the printer free of cost as there was great deficiency in the service of opposite party on which the opposite party became annoyed and started quarreling with the complainant and abused him in a filthy language on which the complainant asked the opposite party to return the amount of the service charges which the opposite party have taken on false assurance and the complainant also reported the matter to police by calling on 181 and complaint was duly given, the reference No.JLD-CT-1331282 on 21.08.2016. The police recorded the statement of the complainant but no action was taken by the police.

2. That the opposite party are indulged in an unfair trade practices and by giving false assurances charging the amount unnecessarily and the opposite party have also charged unnecessarily amount of repair from the complainant and also assured him and further gave him a guarantee of 15 days and later on it is also transpired that the opposite party have removed power card unnecessarily from the printer and replaced another dead power card which has caused problem in providing the power to the printer and due to this fact printer has become dead and became un-useful for the complainant and caused a loss of Rs.8800/- and now the printer is lying in the house of the complainant. The complainant got served legal notice dated 22.08.2016 upon the opposite party which was duly served upon the opposite party and the opposite party did not response to the notice and kept mum which shows that he is indulged in such kind of practices and impliedly admitted the contents of the notice and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.800/- plus Rs.400/- for cartridge illegally charged from the complainant by the opposite party and for recovery of Rs.50,000/- as damages due to mental agony and harassment caused at hands of the opposite party.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party and accordingly opposite party appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable at all and further alleged that the complaint is barred, estopped and precluded from filing the present complaint by his own acts of omission, commission and admission. It is further alleged that the complainant has not come to Court with clean hand and has concealed and suppressed the material facts and has not revealed the actual facts. The real facts is that the complainant approached the answering respondent for repair of his 10 year old printer with the problem that the same is not picking the paper automatically and Paper Jam. The answering respondent with his utmost skill repaired/solved the problem and after satisfying himself, the complainant after paying charges took away the printer. However, on the next day, again the complainant approached the answering defendant with the printer being in dead condition. On inquiry, it was revealed that the power card of the printer had been overheated due to bulk printing by the complainant. It is noteworthy to add here that the printer used by the complainant and repaired by the answering respondent is for personal use only for light printing purposes, however, the complainant had been using the same for commercial purposes for gain at New Courts Complex, Jalandhar and is regular typist. Because of bulk printing and commercial use, the power card of the printer heated up making the printer dead for which the answering respondent is not liable at all. The answering respondent offered to cure the defect by replacing the power card with new one at the similar purchase cost, however, the complainant refused to pay the purchase cost also and insisted that the same be borne by answering respondent which is not at all possible and the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the averments made in the complainant are categorically denied and lastly prayed the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP Davinder Saini himself tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the complainant as well as the OP and also scanned the file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the entire submission made by both the party themselves and further find from the pleadings and documents that the factum of getting repair a printer from the OP is not a disputed factor rather this factum is admitted by both the party and it is also admitted by the complainant he purchased a Cartridge of Printer of Rs.400/- and also paid the cost of repair to the tune of Rs.800/- but admittedly no bill for the repair of the said printer has been placed by the complainant on the pretext that the bill has not been issued by the OP rather photostat copy of the slip pasted on the printer by the OP Ex.C1 proved on the file wherein the word 15 days guarantee is described, though the bill is not placed on the file but the factum and getting Rs.800/- for that purpose is admitted by the OP himself in his written reply so, non-production of bill does not have any effect on this case.

8. Coming to the controversy between the parties that the printer so get repaired from the OP having same problem on the very next day and these factum has been also mentioned by the OP in his written reply that the complainant got repaired his 10 years old printer with the problem that the same is not picking the paper automatically and Paper Jam and after repairing and paying the repair charges complainant took away the printer but on the very next day the complainant again approached to the OP with the printer that it was not in working condition, now question remains if the printer is repaired by the OP then it should be in working condition even on the next day but it is not possible that the printer was handed over to the complainant in working condition and in short span i.e. on the very next day it cannot have any defect so, it means that the OP has not provided proper services to the complainant, means the printer was not properly repaired, if repaired then it will work properly and there is no evidence that the complainant got bulk printing from the printer. Moreover, it is not possible that within period of over night the complainant has got a bulk printing from the printer. So, the story propounded by the OP means not to be true rather the version of the complainant is established that the OP has not given proper services to the complainant and accordingly we find much force in the submission made by the complainant.

9. In nutshell, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite party is directed to repair the printer of the complainant and handover the same in working condition within 10 days from the date when it is handed over by the complainant to the OP and further OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment and accordingly this complaint is disposed of. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

15.03.2017 Member President