Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/189/2018

Rishi Valley School,Principal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dixit Infotech Service Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.S.Devika & T.Mohan

15 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :17.06.2008

                                                                    Date of disposal            :15.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.189/2018

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 15^thDAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

Rishi Valley School,

Rep by its Principal,

C/o Krishnamurthy Foundations of India,

Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028.

                                                                                                     .. Complainant.                                                                               ..Vs..

1.Dixit Infotech Services P.Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

No.48/1 Giriappa Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai.

 

2.M/s.Maha Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manager,

No.5,61^st Street, 7^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.

 

3.M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

92, Industrial Suburb,

Yashwantpur, Bangalore – 560 022.                                                                                             

                                                                                           ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s.S.Devika & T.Mohan

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties        : Ex - parte

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party              : M/s.Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to refund a sum of Rs.34,000/- or replace the printer and to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,00/- towards compensation for deprivation of use of the printer and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards  cost of this proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.241/2008.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.189/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a laser jet printer 3390 having additional features like scanner, copier and fax, commonly known as an “all-in-one laser jet”, manufactured by the third opposite party in India. The all-in-one laser jet was supplied by the first opposite party vide Invoice No.CHE/1618/07-08/NS, dated 11^th December 2007 for Rs.34,000/- bearing product No. IP (06500A) and serial No.CNMJR45805 HPL 3390. The said printer was covered by warranty against manufacturing defects for a period of one year. The said laser jet, within a few weeks from the date of purchase, ceased to function on 12.02.2008 and it appeared that there was a problem with the internal circuit had been burnt. Immediately the printer was sent to the first opposite party, on their instructions, on 12.02.2008 for service/repair. However surprised to receive from the second opposite party along with the printer with a note that the problem was not covered by the terms of warranty, though the printer was returned to the first opposite party. The second opposite party had also recorded the following in the “resolution summary” in the said customer service order:

RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

BURNT THROUGH LAN CABLE FROM POWER CABLE SIDE THERE IS NO BURNT. FOUND THAT PRINTER WAS BURNT FULLY ON LEFT PORTION OF THE PRINTER INCLUDES FORMATTER BOARD LEFT SIDE COVER & ON THE FLAT BED ASSY. ALL THE SNAPSHOTS ALREADY WE HAVE SENT TO HP ALSO.

Part No. Used & Quantity: IT WON’T COVER UNDER WARRANTY”

Therefore clear that the first and second opposite parties have, without any reason or basis, returned the printer without carrying out necessary repair, by deliberately misinterpreting the terms of warranty. They had refused to carry out the repair on the mistaken impression that the damage was caused by external power fluctuation. It is apparent that the same would have also damaged the system or the external power cable, noted that the LAN cable was found to be completely burnt and that the power cable  had not been burnt. It is therefore evident that it was the LAN card supplied by the Opposite parties or some other internal circuitry that malfunctioned and short circuited, causing fire damage to the “formatter board”, “flat bed assembly”, etc., inside the printer and that the damage had not been caused by any external power fluctuation. The damage are internal, caused due to some defect or manufacturing problem, the first, second and third opposite parties are liable to replace the printer with a defect free model or carry out the repair and return the printer in a working condition. Their refusal to either replace or repair the printer amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,36,000/-. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 3^rdOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          It is admitted that the printer worked perfectly for 3 months from 12^th December 2007 till 11^th February 2008 without a complaint whatsoever. This fact is evident from the fact that the complainant claims to have  everyday use of the printer and there was never an issue in the functioning of the printer till the 12^th are admitted. The complainant does not state the circumstances under which the printer was burnt which was within the exclusive knowledge of the complainant who was in use of the machine at that given point of time. In fact the complainant’s authorized representative had described the problem as “printer was burnt”. The complainant is silent as to how the printer was burnt. If the burning was due to a external power source, the system would have also been affected “which was not the case”. The printer was burnt extensively which is more than merely internal as evident from the engineer summary as reflected in the CSO. The damage caused to the printer when in the use of the complainant was not due to a manufacturing defect.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  

    parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to  replace the Jet printer   

     or refund Rs.34,000 to the complainant 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?

        4. To what other  relief, the complainant is entitled?        

 

4. POINT NO :1to 3

          The complainant is the principal of Rishi Valley School , Greenways Road, Chennai 28.The 1^st opposite party  Dixit InfoTech Service Private Limited is a company from whom the complainant purchased a Laser Jet Printer 3390 for Rs.34,000/- on 11.12.2017. The 2^nd opposite party is the  Authorized Service Centre. Ex.A1 is copy of the bill issued by the 1^st opposite party in name of complainant on 11.12.2007

          05. The complainant alleged that the said Laser Jet Printer 3390 was functioned and on 12.02.2008 there was a problem in the internal circuit that had been burnt and immediately the printer was sent 1^st opposite party on 12.02.2008 for repair. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party. The 1^st opposite party directed the 2^nd opposite party to verify the defect in the product. The 2^nd opposite party on 29.01.2008 verify the product and found that printer was burnt fully on left portion of the printer and same would not cover under warranty.  Ex.A3 is the customer service order dated 29.01.2008 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant also in the complaint stated that the 2^nd opposite party record the following resolution summary in the customer service order as follows:

          RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

“BURNT THROUGH LAN CABLE FROM POWER CABLE SIDE THERE IS NO BURNT. FOUND THAT PRINTER WAS BURNT FULLY ON LEFT PORTION OF THE PRINTER INCLUDES FORMATTER BOARD LEFT SIDE COVER & ON THE FLAT BED ASSY. ALL THE SNAPSHOTS ALREADY WE HAVE SENT TO HP ALSO.

Part No. Used & Quantity: IT WON’T COVER UNDER WARRANTY”

          06. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties refused to carry out the repair on the mistaken impression that the damage was caused due to external power fluctuation, but the damage of internal part may be due to some manufacturing defect and 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are liable to replace the printer. On the other hand the 3^rd opposite party in their written version and in their proof affidavit contended that the printer was burnt which was within the exclusive knowledge of the complainant, but the complainant has not stated anything about how the printer was burnt and burning was due to a external power source then the system would have also been affected and therefore the cause of damage in the printer when the use of the complainant was not due to any manufacturing defect.

           07. The 1^st opposite party inspected the laser printer and found LAN cable was completely burnt and that power cable had not been burnt. The LAN card was supplied by the 1^st opposite party and same was completely burnt due to some internal short circuit problem. Therefore the damage is not due to any external power fluctuation. The 2^nd opposite party without verifying the internal problems of the printer came to the conclusion that burnt is due to external factor. The conclusion of the 2^nd opposite party was not supported by any documentary proof such as photos.

          08. The complainant purchased the laser printer from the 1^st opposite party on 11.12.2007 and same was burnt and damaged due to  internal circuit problem and same was reported to the 1^st opposite party on 22.02.2008. The burning of the laser printer occurred during  the warranty period. Therefore the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the printer. But the opposite parties failed to replace the printer and same caused mental agony to the complainant.

          09. The 1^st opposite party being the dealer of the product, 2^nd opposite party being service centre of the said product and 3^rd opposite party being the manufacturer of the product, are jointly or severally liable to rectify all the defects in the product or replace the product when any damage occurs during the warranty period. But the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and same amounts to deficiency in service.

          10. The defect in the product happened in the year 2008 due to burning  and  the complainant  filed this complaint  in the year 20008 and pending for more than 23 years. Therefore, the question of rectifying the defect in the product and replacement of product does not arise. On the other hand it the  duty of the opposite parties  to refund the cost of the laser printer to the complainant. The complainant purchased laser printer on 11.12.2007  for Rs.34,000/- and the said laser printer was burnt due to internal short circuit within 2 months from the date of purchased. The complainant unable to use the product from February 2008 till date. Under these circumstance there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties  1 to 3  jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.34,000/- to the complainant and complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

11. POINT NO :4

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.34,000/-(Rupees thirty four thousand only) being the cost of the Laser Jet Printer 3390 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of  proceedings to the complainant.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated11.12.2007           Invoice No.CHE/1618/07-08/NS

 

Ex.A2 dated 12.01.2008          Letter from the complainant to the first opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 29.01.2008          Customer Service order 

Ex.A4 dated 01.04.2008          Legal notice issued by the complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Declaration letter                                                                               

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT