Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member
FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT
This complaint under the provision of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.) – 1) Director- HP India, Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore, Bangalore KA 560030, 2) Sri Arush Sogani, Director, Sysnet Global Rechnologies Pvt. Ltd., W-42, Okhla Phase 2, New Delhi and 3) Manager, Sysnet Global Rechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Biswajit Bhawan, Ramkrishna Road (Opp. Anjali Jewellers), Ashrampara, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal- 734001. The O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).
The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant’s HP Laserjet 1020 plus printer was working for the past three to four years in a good condition but suddenly on 13.08.2020 the paper in the printer started to jam and the said HP Laserjet 1020 plus printer stopped working. On the next very date, i.e., on 14.08.2020 around 11:00 a.m. the complainant took the printer and handed over to the O.P. No.3. At the time of handing over the said printer the staff of O.P. No.3 told the complainant that the said printer would be repaired and delivered to the complainant within two to three days but at that time the O.P. No.3 did not inform the complainant that the entire repairing cost was required to be paid in advance and then only the O.P. No.3 would repair the said printer. After that, crossing of two to three days the O.P. No.3 did not communicate with the complainant. Thereafter, on 17.08.2020 the complainant requested the In- charge/ Manager of the O.P. No.3 over phone to repair the said defective printer as early as possible but on the next date, i.e. on 18.08.2020, the complainant received a call from O.P. No.3 (Mr. Gautam Basak) asking him to make a payment of Rs. 3,019/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Nineteen) only as cost and charge for the said repairing work. Later on, in the evening of the same date, the complainant received an e-mail along with a quotation of Rs. 4,288.12/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight and Twelve Paisa) only where the complainant was asked to pay the entire quotation amount in advance for the repairing of the said defective printer. The complainant several times requested the O.P. No.3 to repair the said printer and also assured them that he would pay the repairing charges but firstly he must be satisfied by the repairing job of his printer. Thereafter, on 21.08.2020 the complainant communicated with the O.P. No.3through e-mail and requested them to collect the cheque from his residence as he was not in a condition to visit their service centre. Despite of several requests the O.P. No.3 did not provide any service to him and finally having no other alternative on 24.08.2020 the complainant compelled to purchase another HP M1136 printer. On 26.08.2020 the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P.s but the O.P.s did not make any response. Only the O.P. No.3 confirmed the receiving the legal notice and told that they were unable to process their service due to non-payment of the entire quotation amount.
The prayers of complainant are as follows :
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to repair the defective printer.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant on account of compensation for harassment, mental torture and agony caused to the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as legal expenses and cost of proceedings.
- Any other relief as the complainant may be found to be entitled to.
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
- Photocopy of Service Call Report date 14.08.2020 issued by the “Sysnet HP Service Centre”.
- Photocopy of Legal Notice dated 26.08.2020.
- Photocopy of three postal receipts dated 26.08.2020.
- Photocopy of Tax Invoice bill of HP Laserjet M1136 printer dated 24.08.2020.
- Photocopy of record of e-mails between the complainant and the O.P.s.
Regarding this instant case, the Opposite Party (O.P.) – 1) Director- HP India, Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore, Bangalore KA 560030, 2) Sri Arush Sogani, Director, Sysnet Global Rechnologies Pvt. Ltd., W-42, Okhla Phase 2, New Delhi and 3) Manager, Sysnet Global Rechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Biswajit Bhawan, Ramkrishna Road (Opp. Anjali Jewellers), Ashrampara, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal- 734001. The O.P. No.1, 2 and 3contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) separately and as per their W.V. the case is as follows.
As per the W.V., the answering O.P. is well supported by the excellent authorized channel partner and service centers like O.P. No.1 and 3 respectively in the present case having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only and the customers of all the products manufactured by the answering O.P. are provided services through a large network of authorized channel partners and service centers. The complainant had misconceived and baseless allegations that the printer in question was defective without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory and deficiency in service without any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, the obligation of the answering O.P. is only to repair the printer; accordingly, the service team of the answering O.P. has attended to the complaint lodged within warranty promptly but in this case as the issue reported in the printer was after the expiry of warranty period, any repair or replacement of the part would be on chargeable basis. The service team shared the quotation for the repair and part replacement informing the complainant to pay the amount towards the repair in advance to enable the service team to order for the part and complete the repair activity but the complainant refused to pay the amount in advance and insisted on repair which was not permissible under the warranty policy. In his W.V. the answering O.P. has mentioned judgments in support of his defense.
The answering O.P. prayed in their W.V. that since the complainant failed to make out a prima facie case against the answering O.P., the instant complaint of the complainant be kindly dismissed against the O.P. NO.1.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.
The O.P. No.3 is carrying his business in P.O. & P.S- Siliguri - 734001, Dist.- Darjeeling. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P.s not only through his Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
As per the complaint the complainant’s HP Laserjet 1020 plus printer was working for the past three to four years in a good condition but suddenly on 13.08.2020 the paper in the printer started to jam and the said HP Laserjet 1020 plus printer stopped working. On the next very date, i.e., on 14.08.2020 around 11:00 a.m. the complainant took the printer and handed over to the O.P. No. At the time of handing over the said printer the staff of O.P. No.3 told the complainant that the said printer would be repaired and delivered to the complainant within two to three days but at that time the O.P. No.3 did not inform the complainant that the entire repairing cost was required to be paid in advance and then only the O.P. No.3 would repair the said printer. After that, crossing of two to three days the O.P. No.3 did not communicate with the complainant. Thereafter, on 17.08.2020 the complainant requested the In- charge/ Manager of the O.P. No.3 over phone to repair the said defective printer as early as possible but on the next date, i.e. on 18.08.2020, the O.P. No.3 asking him to make a payment of Rs. 3,019/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Nineteen) only as cost and charge for the said repairing work. Later on, in the evening of the same date, the complainant received an e-mail along with a quotation of Rs. 4,288.12/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight and Twelve Paisa) only where the complainant was asked to pay the entire quotation amount in advance for the repairing of the said defective printer. The complainant several times requested the O.P. No.3 to repair the said printer and also assured them that he would pay the repairing charges but firstly he must be satisfied by the repairing job of his printer. Thereafter, on 21.08.2020 the complainant communicated with the O.P. No.3through e-mail and requested them to collect the cheque from his residence as he was not in a condition to visit their service centre. Despite of several requests the O.P. No.3 did not provide any service to him and finally having no other alternative on 24.08.2020 the complainant compelled to purchase another HP M1136 printer. On 26.08.2020 the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P.s but the O.P.s did not make any response. Only the O.P. No.3 confirmed the receiving the legal notice and told that they were unable to process their service due to non-payment of the entire quotation amount.
As per the W.V., the answering O.P. is well supported by the excellent authorized channel partner and service centers like O.P. No.1 and 3 respectively in the present case having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only and the customers of all the products manufactured by the answering O.P. are provided services through a large network of authorized channel partners and service centers. The complainant had misconceived and baseless allegations that the printer in question was defective without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory and deficiency in service without any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, the obligation of the answering O.P. is only to repair the printer; accordingly, the service team of the answering O.P. has attended to the complaint lodged within warranty promptly but in this case as the issue reported in the printer was after the expiry of warranty period, any repair or replacement of the part would be on chargeable basis. The service team shared the quotation for the repair and part replacement informing the complainant to pay the amount towards the repair in advance to enable the service team to order for the part and complete the repair activity but the complainant refused to pay the amount in advance and insisted on repair which was not permissible under the warranty policy. In his W.V. the answering O.P. has mentioned judgments in support of his defense.
Ii is clear from the evidence that the complainant had enough knowledge that he had to pay Rs. 4,288.12/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Eight and Twelve Paisa) only for the repairing of his said printer. It is also understood from the part of the O.P.s that they need some time to indentify the problem of the said printer and in this instant case, as per the complaint of the complainant that the O.P.s took two to three days which is reasonable to identify the problem.
In this case, this Commission does not get any evidence which shows that the O.P.s denied to receive the amount from the complainant and it is the discretion of the O.P.s whether they will collect the amount from the residence of the complainant or not. Moreover, this Commission does not find any agreement which can prove that the O.P.s will collect the amount from the residence of the complainant.
In this instant case, this Commission does not hesitate to hold that this incident hampered the dignity of the complainant because a consumer always expects a gentle response from the service provider. So, this Commission strictly warns the O.P.s to maintain a gentle behavior with their customers and never hamper the dignity of his customers. This Commission has certain limitation to enter in this point as because the defamation does not come under the C.P. Act.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 17/2020 be and same is dismissed in contest against the O.P.s without cost. The complainant is entitled to get liberty to take back the said one (01) defective printer with his own cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
