Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Dawinder  Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant is carrying on small work of gem testing for earning his livelihood  by means of self employment and purchased  the printer with a year warranty on site from Opposite Party No.2 being the local dealer of Opposite Party No.1 who is manufacturing/ marketing the said printer, copy of the bill is attached. The complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant purchased the first printer on 30.11.2014 from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.69,500/- and which required the refill toners which were not supplied to the complainant after several requests were made to Opposite Parties  for  around six months and the complainant was forced to purchase another printer from Opposite Party No.2 on 30.7.2015 for Rs.69,500/-, the copies  of the invoices are attached with the complaint and be read as part of the complaint, on the said forced purchase  of another printer the Opposite Parties  supplied the toners to the complainant, but the print quality of the printers were not satisfactory and the complaint for both printers were registered with Opposite Parties  vide  docket No. 4761980019 and 4761981659. The service engineer from Opposite Parties  visited the complainant and after lot of deliberations and exchange of mails, the toners were rectified for the second purchased printer and for the first printer, the part ETB belt required replacement which the Opposite Parties  are not replacing till the filing of the present complaint. The service engineers of the Opposite Parties  have inspected the same and found to be faulty and inspite of the said fact and part being under  warranty, the Opposite Parties  are not replacing the same instead sending the quotation of Rs.28,326/-, it is pertinent to mention over here that the said printer is lying idle due to callous attitude of the Opposite Parties. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in not providing the proper after sales services and rectifying the genuine problems of the complainant is an act of deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has caused the mental agony and harassment. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to rectify the printers fo the complainant and change the required part within warranty obligation to the satisfaction of the complainant.

b)      Opposite Parties  be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.           

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable in law or in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the same is liable to be dismissed; that answering Opposite Party is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at No.24, Salarpuria Arene, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore 560030. The answering Opposite Party  is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of computers, laptops, printers, scanners and other IT peripheral components (product) are globally acclaimed for its class and quality. It is submitted that the products manufactured by answering Opposite Party pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production. The products are manufactured and marketed after being approved by the appropriate authority which is highest body to certify the IT products and go through a process of quality inspection before the same is dispatched to the authorised channel partner for sale on a ‘principal to principal’ basis; the answering Opposite Party is well supported by the excellent authorised channel partner and service centres, having excellent set up for after sales servicing of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel. It is submitted that the customers of all the products manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are provided services through a large network of authorised channel partners and service centres. The network of such authorised  service centres is being continuously enhanced & widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services as closer to the customer’s doorsteps as far as possible; at the very outset, the answering Opposite Party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this written statement and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed; the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts; that from perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with malafide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the answering Opposite Party without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the printers in question nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice being established against the answering Opposite Party, hence the averments and / or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality. It is submitted that the printer purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using  the product and the complainant had purchased the printers after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention to state that all the products manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are marketed only after the prototype of the same is being approved by the appropriate authority. All the products manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the country quality department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. It is pertinent to state that the products of the answering Opposite Party are certified by the international standard for quality systems for all the computer and  related peripheral companies and this international standard specifies requirements for a quality system where an organisation needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product meeting customer’s satisfaction and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; that the warranty benefits provided by the answering Opposite Party on the said printers are for a defined period. The warranty is explicit and the terms and conditions of such limited  warranty state in unequivocal terms and the warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the ‘warranty ends’ date has been reached. The answering Opposite Party states that it does not provide any service/ remedy available under the warranty free of cost for physical damage/ induced damage caused to the units, even if the fault occurs before the expiry period of the warranty, the answering Opposite Party  is not liable to provide any service to the customer, free of cost. In the case in hand, the subject  printers are  provided with repair warranty  for a period of one year  from the date of purchase. The on verification of the data base maintained by the answering Opposite Party based on the serial numbers of the printers, it is learnt that the printers in question were reported for grey patch and print quality issues vide complaint docket No.4761980019 and 4761981659 respectively, upon which the product specialist team of the answering Opposite Party  have diagnosed the units and  for the issue reported under Docket No. 4761980019, Service Engineer was assigned to check the printer, who in inspection of the printer, learnt that the grey patch issue was customer induced damage, hence had explained  the same to the complainant and  support was provided under chargeable basis. For the issue reported under the docket No. 4761981659, the service team had informed the complainant to get the Toners validated from service centre, thereafter the service engineers from the answering Opposite Party  visited the complainant and toners were rectified. It is further submitted that the complainant had again reported issue for which ETB Belt replacement was required, however since the belt was physically damaged by complainant and not covered under the terms of the warranty replacement of the ETB belt was offered on chargeable basis and  quotation was shared, but the complainant had declined for replacement of the ETB belt on trade basis. It is further submitted that there are no known issues or manufacturing defect in the printers in question as alleged by the complainant. The answering Opposite Party is ready and willing to diagnose the printers and resolve the issues as per the terms of the warranty and the complainant is at liberty to submit the printers to the customer care  centre or authorised  service centre of the answering Opposite Party  for resolutions as per warranty guidelines. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is prima facie  unsustainable and therefore, the question of granting any relief whatsoever to the complainant does not arise; that this Forum, while considering the prayers as sought for by the complainant in the present complaint, ought to keep in mind the well established principle laid down by  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him t o prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract; that this Forum h as no jurisdiction under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint.  On merits, the facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       None has put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite due service, so Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order 1.6.2016 of this Forum.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of invoices Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copies of job sheets Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party has tendered into evidence affidavit  of Sh.Spurthi Mauli, Authorised Signatory of HP India Limited Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. 

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has vehemently contended that it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased two printers from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 vide invoices dated 30.7.2015 and  dated 3.11.2014, copies of the bills account for Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 on record. It is also not disputed that the complainant lodged complaint vide  docket No.4761980019 and 4761981659, copies whereof are Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 on record. So far as the problem of toners was concerned, the same was rectified  to the satisfaction of the complainant. Btu however, so far as  replacement of ETB Belt was concerned, the complainant was duly intimated by Opposite Party that the replacement could not be made because physical damage has been done by the complainant to ETB component and the same was required under the terms of the warranty replacement of the ETB belt. The ETB belt  was offered on chargeable basis and quotation was shared, copy whereof is Ex. C7, but the complainant had declined for replacement of the ETB belt on trade basis. Reliance has been made on Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein it has been held that when the complainant signs the contract document, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms & the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract with Opposite Party and as such, the complaint is governed by terms and conditions   specifically   mentioned in the terms  and   conditions that for

physical damage down to any component of the printer, the warranty terms would not apply for the replacement of the physically damaged part.  In such circumstances, it is vehemently contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and it is contended that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

8.       But however, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant had purchased two printers from Opposite Party No.2  and at the first instance, the complainant had to  lodge the complaint as toners were not working smoothly and properly and the printing was not legible. The Service Engineer of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant and rectified the toner problem. Lateron, ETB belt of the printer,  purchased on dated 3.11.2014 vide bill Ex.C3, was found to be defective and the complaint to that effect was lodged with Opposite Party No.2 at its service centre. Service Engineer from Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the defective printer, but however, he made a lame excuse that the damage has been caused to ETB belt of the printer physically and the complainant was negligent in the use of the printer, therefore, although the printer was within its warranty, yet replacement  of the ETB component can not be made free of cost. But however, there is no independent expert  opinion on record to substantiate  that allegation. In such a situation, the stand taken by Opposite Party stands falsified and the same can not be accepted by any stretch of imagination. It is admitted fact that the printer in dispute is within its warranty period and as such, ETB component of the printer in dispute can not be chargeable from the complainant. Therefore, the quotation issued by Opposite Party to the complainant with a direction to make the payment of the  component in dispute amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has suffered a lot on account of deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite Parties . In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the ETB component from the Opposite Parties  ‘free of cost’ and the Opposite Parties  are under legal obligation to repair the printer in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant.

9.       Consequently, instant complaint succeeds and Opposite Parties  are directed to repair the printer in dispute and replace the ETB component of the printer in dispute ‘free of cost’ to the satisfaction of the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for getting the order in question executed in accordance with law. The costs of litigation are assessed at Rs.2,000/-.  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

Dated: 24.08.2016.