Order dictated by:

Sh.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

1.       Inderjit Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12  of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he purchased one printer of model Pr. Hp office Jet 7612 from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 24,500/- vide Invoice No. VAT 36 dated 4.4.2017. Opposite party No.1 is a manufacturing company and opposite party No.2 is the local dealer from whom the complainant purchased the printer  and the opposite party No.3 is the service centre  from where the engineer of opposite party NO.3 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the printer in question. At the time of purchase of said printer the authorized signatory of opposite party No.2 had given assurance that the said printer is of very high quality one and it will not create any problem for the complainant in future. Opposite party No.2 further told the complainant that he will not have to go through the process of refilling the cartridge  and they will refill the cartridge if this required by the complainant . On the basis of the assurance, the complainant agreed to purchase the abovesaid printer form opposite party No.2.. All the assurance and undertakings given by the authorized signatory of opposite party No.2 regarding quality of the printer proved to be false one  and within 15 days from the date of purchase of the said printer from opposite party No.2, there was problem in the said cartridge  of the said printer . The complainant immediately went to opposite party No.2 and requested them to rectify the abovesaid defect. On this  the authorized signatory of opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the cartridge in the said printer cannot be refilled now and they will have to change the cartridge with the new one.  The complainant requested the authorized signatory to refill the said cartridge as was told to him by opposite party No.2 and not to charge anything but instead to listen the genuine requests of the complainant, authorized signatory told the complainant that the complainant will have to pay Rs. 6000/-  for changing the cartridge  . Thereafter the complainant talked to the official of opposite party No.1 who deputed the engineer of opposite party No.2 to visit the premises of the complainant and to verify the defect. On 1.8.2017 engineer of opposite party No.3 service centre came to the premises of the complainant for checking the abovesaid printer but the said defect was not removed  and he went back. The complainant was not satisfied with the service of opposite party No.2. The copy of said job sheet dated 1.8.2017 is also attached.  Thereafter since first week of  August 2017  the complainant has been visiting the opposite party No.2 and requesting them to refill the cartridge free of cost or to provide new printer  to the complainant of the same model without charging anything or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 24500/-  but opposite party No.2 flatly refused to listen to the genuine requests of the complainant. The abovesaid act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to discontinue the deficiency in service and opposite party No.2 be directed to replace the defective cartridge of the said printer with new one without charging extra amount  or to replace the said printer with new one or in the alternative to refund Rs. 24500/-  alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein interalia that  the ame of opposite party No.1 company earlier known as Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited has been changed to EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. that the above complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable nor on fact and circumstances of the case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.1 ; that complainant has filed the complaint against opposite party No.1 alleging manufacturing defect in the HP office Jet 7612 (Printer) and deficiency in service. It was submitted that opposite party No.1 is neither manufacturers nor the service provider of the printer in question, as such is not responsible or liable for the claims of the complainant ; complainant has filed the present complaint against Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.1 which is an entity that is neither responsible nor liable for the grievance of the complainant for the alleged defects in the  printer in question  as the opposite party No.1 is not the manufacturer or the service provider for the printer in question ;  that the present complaint against opposite party No.1 is not maintainable as the complainant has filed the same against a wrong entity; that complainant has not addressed or issued any legal notice to opposite party No.1 that if the complainant would have issued legal notice, the opposite party No.2 would have informed the complainant that it is not the right party to be approached in respect of the printer in question ; that from the date of purchase the alleged printer, the complainant has neither reported any grievance to the opposite party No.1 nor communicated with opposite party No.1 in respect of the printer in question at any point of time; It was submitted that opposite party No.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the service providers of the printer in question and as such are responsible or liable for the claims of the complainant ; that the opposite party No.1 is neither residing/having a branch office or carrying any business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In the present case there is no iota of evidence of materials from the side of the complainant that the complainant has purchased any goods or has availed any service from opposite party No.1 . Accordingly, in the absence of any relevant documents to this effect, the complainant is not entitled to maintain the dispute against the opposite party No.1 since the complainant is not a consumer against the opposite party No.1. The onus lies with the complainant to prove that the complaint is maintainable against the opposite party No.1 . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant has got no cause of action against the replying opposite party as the replying opposite party has nothing to do with the warranty obligations extended by other opposite parties. The replying opposite party is only a selling dealer and all other obligations are to be preferred by the other opposite parties ; that the replying opposite party has never ever given any such assurance as alleged by the complainant . It was denied that the complainant ever approached the replying opposite party  post sale of the said alleged product. In case of any problem to the printer the complainant has to approach the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. Moreover the warranty obligations are the prerogative of the manufacturer and service centre. The manufacturer is the necessary party and has been impleaded by the complainant himself in the instant complaint and also the service provider is the most necessary party who can bring the truth to the Forum . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint against the replying opposite party has been prayed for.

4.       Opposite party No.3 did not opt to put in appearance despite service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

5.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.Vikram Puri,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice dated 4.4.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of service call report Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Vishal Sharma,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Shabahat Khan Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

7.       On the other hand Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Lovkesh Gupta Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

8.       We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

9.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it stands proved on record that complainant has purchased one printer of model Pr. Hp office jet 7612 from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 24500/- vide invoide dated 4.4.2017, copy of which is Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that after few days there is a problem in the printing and he made a complaint verbally to opposite party No.2 , who referred the complainant to approach opposite party No.3 being the service centre  vide job sheet, copy of which is Ex.C-3 on 1.8.2017 in which the defect mentioned was relating to “printing issue” as well as “Cartridge defective”. Perusal of the said job sheet shows that the complainant commented on the said job sheet “Not satisfied” . As such complainant made several visits to opposite party No.3 to remove the abovesaid defects in the printer but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such the complainant has no other way left except to file the instant complaint.

10.     On the other hand the only plea of opposite party No.1 is that it is not the manufacturer of the said printer as complainant has filed complaint against Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Ltd. which was earlier name of opposite party No.1 but now the name of opposite party No.1 is changed to EIT Services India Private Limited.

11.     Whereas opposite party No.2 appeared and stated that they are only  selling dealer and all other obligations are to be preferred by the other opposite parties . However, opposite party No.3 did not opt to put in appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte. As such opposite party No.3 failed to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant and impliedly admitted the case of the complainant .

12.     From the abovesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that there is no dispute relating to the purchase of the printer on 4.4.2017. The dispute arose on 1.8.2017 when the complainant approached opposite party No.3  i.e. service centre and the opposite party No.3 issued job sheet , copy of which is Ex.C-3 which fully proves that the printer is within the warranty period . Moreover, the issue described in the job card was relating to the printing and defective cartridge. In the said job card the complainant gave remarks “Not satisfied” . So it is clear that the product is defective and it is well within warranty period . However, opposite party No.1 which is the manufacturing company stated that their name is changed to EIT but being lay man how the complainant can make himself aware about each and every point/information relating to the manufacturer. The consumer just know about the name of the manufacturer from whom he has purchased the product and impleaded it as a party. Even job card is given by opposite party No.3  . But opposite party No.3 not even bothered to appear in this case and raised issue against the said job card which clearly proves that they are well aware that there is a defect in the said product. So the demand of the opposite party worth Rs. 6000/- for setting right the cartridge within the warrant period , is illegal.

13.     In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint with costs and opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed to replace the defective cartridge  with new one of same make and model  and if the opposite parties No.1 & 3 are not in a position to replace the cartridge, in that eventuality opposite parties No.1 & 3 are liable to refund the price of the printer. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. However, complaint against opposite party No.2 stands dismissed. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum

Announced in Open Forum