Judgment : Dt.5.7.2017
This is a complaint made by Smt. Chandana Barman, wife of Sri Mihir Jyoti Barman, proprietress of “The Password” of 76, Raja S.C.Mullick Road, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 084 against (1) Epson India Pvt. Ltd., 12th floor, Millenia Tower-A, No.1 Marphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008, OP No.1 and (2) M/s Graphic Enterprises, 3A, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, P.S.- New Market, Kolkata-700 013, OP No.2, praying for an order directing OP No.2 to (i) deliver the scanner stand and the hard disc for the scanner, (ii) to refund the amount of Rs.88,152/- collected more than the maximum retail price for the printer and the scanner and also an order directing the OP to install the scanner with hard disc and to provide warranty on and from the date of such installation and an order directing for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant has been running a business of Xerox under the name and style ‘THE PASSWORD’ at 76, Raja S. C. Mullick Road, Kolkata-700 084. Complainant with the intention to purchase EPSON make large number of printer and MFP scanner approached the dealer OP No.1, M/S Graphic Enterprise. OP No.1 is the manufacturer of EPSON make large printer and MFP scanner. The representative of OP No.2 came and contacted with the Complainant at her place of business. After discussion, Complainant visited the office at Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road. Accordingly, Complainant sent her son to the office at New Market where he was told that the price of the printer and scanner including stand and hard disc for the scanner shall come up to Rs.5,14,500/- and quotation dt.5.5.2015 to the OP No.2 to the son of the Complainant. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,500/- vide cheque No.53823 dt.25.5.2015 to the OP No.2 and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.53826 dt.22.6.2015 to the OP No.2 and upon receipt of the aforesaid payments OP No.2 through its representative sent two boxes claiming to be containing the EPSON make MFP Scanner and roll of paper and handed over all tax invoice dt.30.6.2015 to the Complainant. OPs installed the printer and stand but the MFP scanner was not installed as the stand and the Hard for the scanner was claimed to be delivered later.
Complainant after waiting for few days for the delivery of the stand and the hard disc for the scanner called OP No.2 through her son, when he was told that the Complainant has to pay additional cost for the scanner stand and the hard disc for the scanner. The Complainant asked clarification about extra demand. But the OP was failed to give satisfactory explanation. Thereafter, noticed the MRP printed into the boxes delivered by the OP No.2 and was shocked to see that the price of the printer bearing model No.SCT5270 is Rs.2,34,249/- and the price of MPF scanner is Rs.1,90,099/- and both the price are inclusive of taxes. OP No.2 collected Rs.5,14,500/- from the Complainant as per the quotation. But, surprisingly the total price for the printer bearing Model No.SCT5270 and the price of MPF scanner came to Rs.4,24,348/-. Thereafter, Complainant went through the tax invoices and found that the price of the printer bearing model No.SCT5270 was Rs.2,34,000/- and for Scanner it was printed was Rs.1,97,000/- which means extra of Rs.21,650/-. Complainant was assured by the OP No.2 that the price of scanner also includes stand and hard disc. But the same were not delivered. Moreover, an excess amount of Rs.6,901/- from the MRP was charged by OP No.2. OP No.2 collected Rs.5,14,500/- from the Complainant as per quotation provided by them. But, at the time of delivery, the products handedover for an amount of Rs.4,54,650/- and so OP took excess amount of Rs.88,152/-. Thereafter Complainant lodged complaint through e-mail and asked for the explanation about the reasons for charging excess.
OP No.2 being authorized dealer of OP No.1 and adopted unfair trade practice in the manner aforesaid and collected Rs.88,152/- more than the MRP. So, the Complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 filed written version and has denied the allegation of the complaint. OP has stated that the case is not maintainable. Further, OP No.2 has admitted that Complainant paid Rs.5,14,500/- and OP No.2 supplied printer and scanner and installed also. OP No.2 with all the denials has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.1 did not contest the case by filing written version. So, the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.1.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. Against this, OP No.2 has filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. OP No.2 has also filed evidence to which Complainant has put questionnaire and OP No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination as to whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.88,152/-. This refund Complainant has sought on the basis of the fact that when the articles were delivered to his house, the MRP was mentioned on those articles which was less than what he had paid. In this regard, Complainant drew the attention of this Forum over Annexure – E series where the price is mentioned as Rs.2,34,249/- and Rs.1,90,099/-. If we add this to prices it comes to Rs.4,24,348/-. But, the main point here is to examine whether the price collected is of OP No.2 or of EPSON India Pvt. Ltd. Exhibit E-series is annexure copy and this do not make it clear that these prices are of the OP No.2. This price are definitely of EPSON India Pvt. Ltd. whose office is at Bangalore. Now, the dealer would have sold any article to the consumer/ customer he charges freight for that amount. Furthermore, Complainant has not filed any document to establish whether the articles supplied at prices affixed which was approved by Graphix Enterprise. OP No.2, as such, on the basis of E-series, it cannot be said that OP No.2 made any unfair trade practice. Unfair trade practice and the amount which Complainant paid are not genuinely inclusive of the charges of the OP No.2. Accordingly, this prayer cannot be allowed. Complainant has also prayed for direction upon the OP to deliver the scanner, stand and hard disc. But, Complainant failed to file any document to establish that hard disc and stand of the scanner were agreed by OP No.2 to be delivered to the Complainant. Further, in the complaint petition, Complainant has stated that OP No.2 had agreed proposed verbally to hand over. However, since there is no document, we cannot belief that there was agreement between OP No.2 and the Complainant for delivery of hard disc and stand of the scanner. So, this prayer also cannot be allowed. Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-.
Since Complainant failed to establish the allegations brought in the complaint petition, there is no question that he will be awarded compensation or litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
CC/463/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
