COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 24th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2556/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Rajashekar. T.B.,<br /> S/o. Sri. Bheemaiah,<br /> Occ: Advocate and Tax Practitioner,<br /> R/o. # 12, 1st Floor,<br /> Prakruthi Building,<br /> Near Canara Bank Bus Stop,<br /> 18th Main, Subramanyanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 021.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (H.H. Nagaraj)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Hewleft-Packard Development Company,<br /> L.P. (H.P.), # 777/E, <br /> 100 Feet Road, <br /> Opp: New Horizon Street,<br /> Indiranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> Represented by the <br /> Service Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Crish Infotech Engineers,<br /> Branch Office : # 175/23,<br /> 1st Floor, 14th (A) Cross,<br /> Vyalikaval Extn.,<br /> Bangalore – 560 006.<br /> Represented by Sri. Ganesh.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace HP 1020 laserjet printer and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one HP 1020 laserjet printer from OP for a total cost of Rs.7,020/- on 28.09.2007. The said printer carried warranty. After installation of the said printer at his office, unfortunately he noticed the defect within a span of few months. Then immediately lodged complaint to OP to rectify the said mistake, but it went in vain. Thereafter he caused the legal notice, again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though he has invested his hard earned money to get defect free printer, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude and negligence on the part of the OP in supplying the defective printer. Hence he felt the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though the OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being the Advocate by profession and a Tax Practitioner for the office use purchased one HP 1020 laserjet printer from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.7,020/- on 28.09.2007. The document to that effect is produced. When he got installed the said printer at his office, to his utter shock and surprise he noticed the defect in the printer manufactured by OP.1 supplied by OP.2. Then immediately contacted the OP to rectify the said mistake by lodging the complaint. The said defect occurred during the warranty period. Though complainant addressed the letter on 23.06.2008 and sent the fax on 30.06.2008, there was no response. Then he got issued the legal notice on 28.07.2008, it is returned as not claimed. The copies of the above said documents and correspondence are produced. Again there was no response from the OP.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Though complainant has invested his hard earned money to get defect free printer, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. For want of printer he has faced certain problems in his Advocacy and Tax Practice, thus suffered monetary loss. OP having collected the huge amount towards the cost of the said printer, failed to supply defect free printer, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his.<br /> <br /> 6. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace HP 1020 laserjet printer sold to complainant on 28.09.2007 with a brand new defect free printer of the same model for the same cost and take back the defective printer and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />