Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/76

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gitanjali Systems - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh adv

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA 

 

                                                     RBT/Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2018

                                                          Date of institution: 01.02.2018

                                                          Date of Decision: 28.04.2022

 

Davinder Singh, son of Sh. Kulwant Singh, resident of House No.7203, Street No.17, New Janta Nagar, Daba Road, Ludhiana 

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Gitanjli Systems, B-XVIII-3791/8/1A&B, Jagjit Nagar, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-141001, Phone No.0161-4611122, Email ID:accounts@gitanjli.com
2. Cannon India Private Limited 7^th Floor, Tower B, Building #5, DLF Epitome, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002.  

                                                                          ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum:     Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, for complainant   

OP No.1 exparte

Sh. Rajneesh Lakhanpal, Adv. For OP2    

                  


 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President 

Order

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one Cannon Laser LBP 2900B, bearing Serial No.NAQA985320 vide invoice No.961 dated 15.12.2017. The complainant had started using the said printer since 2.1.2018. While using the printer, the complainant had noticed that the impression of printing of the printer is very light giving indication of some deficiency and low quality. The complainant presumed the printer being new, might regain the desired quality after some usage, but the presumption of the complainant was wrong as the quality of the printing of the printer did not improve with usage. The quality of the printing remains the same till writing of the complaint. It is further alleged that on 10.1.2018, the complainant had lodged  a complaint to OP1 regarding the quality of printing of the printer. The customer executive of OP1 assured the complainant to solve the problem. On the same day, a service engineer named Mr. Yogesh had reached at the office of complainant and he verified the complainant’s complaint and took out a page from the printer and confirmed that some defect is there in the cartridge of the printer. Then he told the complainant that he will come back after one and half hours with another cartridge to check whether the printer is faulty or the cartridge. After one and half hour, the service engineer came back to the office of the complainant with another cartridge and checked the printer again. Finally, the service engineer confirmed that the cartridge of the printer is faulty and that has to be replaced since the printer is new one. Then the service engineer talked to his senior, who suggested him to convey the complainant to get the cartridge purchased, the service engineer even stated this fact in his complaint job sheet :”Light printing due to Toner defective, customer is requested to purchase a new tonner”. The complainant protested against the purchasing of new cartridge by way of payment and did not sign the said complaint job sheet. It is further alleged that while purchasing the printer, the OP1 had assured him that if any problem occurred within one year in any part of the printer that he will change it free of cost at his end. Moreover, the complainant really very disappointed from the service of the OP1 as well as OP2. When the complainant had purchased a new printer then why should be suffer to pay for the manufacturing fault of the cartridge of the printer?. Despite repeated requests to OPs, the OPs failed to solve the defect in the printer. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and undue harassment.
2. Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant may be found entitled under the circumstances of the present complaint may also be granted.

3. The O.P. No.1. was duly served and were proceeded against ex-parte vide our order dated 29.05.2018
4. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP2 has appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP2; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 as the complainant has not placed any material on record to prove deficiency on its part; that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint with a view to unjustly enrich himself; that the both the OPs as well as the OP1 are two independent/distinct entities, sharing a principal to principal relationship with one another. On merits, it is stated that the on 15.12.2017 the complainant had purchased the cannon laser printer LBP 2900 B from OP1. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the cartridges or any other consumables are not covered under the warranty and the same was communicated to the complainant. Further for the sake of arguments, but without admission it is submitted that even otherwise as per the terms and conditions only repair are carried out, no replacements are provided. The complainant has suppressed material facts and with a malafide intention to enrich himself unjustly not disclosed that the answering OP offered to change the cartridge of the printer free of cost and the same was refused by the complainant. It is further stated that the OP2 is engaged in the business of importing, trading and marketing of various Cannon products like printers, cameras, fax, scanners and other multifunctional devices and has a very good market value and goodwill. The products imported and traded by the OP2 are sold to the customers through a network of its authorized dealers and resellers all over the country. All the products imported and traded by the OP2 are tested for a stringent quality parameter at factory before being released for sale in the market. In this regard, the said printer was also duly tested as per the prescribed standards and the same happens to be a genuine product. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OP2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint against OP2. 
5. The complainant has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased the cannon Laser LBP printer from the OP1 but after its purchase, the said printer occurs some defect and immediately the complainant approached to the OPs to solve the problem. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint and on lodging his complaint, service engineer had reached at the office of the complainant and after checking the printer in question, he told the complainant that light printer due to tonner defective. He also suggested him to purchase a new cartridge but the complainant protested against the purchasing of new cartridge by way of payment. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.
8. The learned counsel for OP2 has argued that OP2 is engaged in the business of importing, trading and marketing of various Cannon products like printers, cameras, fax, scanners and other multifunctional devices and has a very good market value and goodwill. The products imported and traded by the OP2 are sold to the customers through a network of its authorized dealers and resellers all over the country.  All the products imported and traded by the OP2 are tested for a stringent quality parameter at factory before being released for sale in the market. In this regard, the said printer was also duly tested as per the prescribed standards and the same happens to be a genuine product. Lastly prayed to dismiss the present complaint against OP2 as there is no deficiency in service on its part.
9. From the pleadings, it is noticed that complainant had purchased a new cannon printer, LBP 2900B from the OP1 against warranty of one year. After its purchase, the printer in question giving trouble regarding printing of the printer in question.
10.  We are surprised to note that OP2 on one hand has tried to feign ignorance about the sale of its machines by OP1. The OP2 has admitted that there is an  agreement on the principal to principal basis between OPs No.1 & 2 for the sale of the machines. The OP2 cannot be absolved of its responsibilities as it has failed to take any necessary action against OP1. Such acts of OPs No.1 & 2 amount to unfair trade practice.
11. The complainant has placed on record copy of bill vide which he purchased the printer in question, copy of communication through email between the complainant and OPs as Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, which clearly shows that the complainant was requested to the OPs to rectify the defect occurred in the printer. It is important to mention here that in its reply, the OP2 did not deny that there was anything wrong with the printer.
12.  From the perusal of the entire evidence, it is a writ-large on the file that the printer was purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.1 and it has manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase and it is also proved on file that the printer was not working property from the very first date.
13.  In such circumstances, we feel that the complainant is successful in proving his allegations against the Ops and it will not be in the interest of justice to ask the O.Ps. to simply repair the printer at this stage since it is proved that the printer definitely had a manufacturing defect. 
14. In view of the discussion made above, it is ordered that the OPs. will immediately refund Rs.8700/- to the complainant jointly and severally (Ops No.1 & 2).  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to comply with the above said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.  

 

 

 

                  

                                                                                                                       

                                                          (RANVIR KAUR)                                                                              (RANJIT SINGH)

                                                         MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT