DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 04  of   2018

 

Sri Swapan Kr. Bhattacharjee,

S/O- Lt. Balai Chandra Bhattacharjee,

Gokulnagar, P.S. Bishalgarh, Bishalgarh,

District- Sepahijala, Tripura. …........…...Complainant.

 

        -VERSUS-

 

1. HP Corporate Office Kolkata,

No. 08, Major Arteral Road,

Block- AF New Town 1st Floor,

Raharhat, Kolkata- 700156.

 

2. 1st Infotech,

(Represented by its Manager),

Kerchoumuhani, Krishnanagar, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura, Tripura- 799001. 

 

3. Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Old Cornal House(Singha Para),

45 HGB Road, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura, Tripura- 799001. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

For the Complainant : Sri Bimal Kanti Nath,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Dr. Pankaj Banik,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps No.2 & 3 : None appeared.    

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  12.06.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case  arises on the petition filed by Swapan Kr. Bhattacharjee U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one photo printer machine on payment of Rs.11,500/-. But the machine was not working. So, he went to the service centre for repairing. Complainant was asked to sign in the blank call report. He was harassed for printer machine  which was not repaired. He prayed for replacement of printer machine and also compensation.

 

2. O.P. appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that photo printer machine was well established product in the market. Petitioner failed to follow the guideline for use. O.P. stated that warranty applicable subject to fulfillment of other terms of warranty. Therefore petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the photo printer machine was defective at the time of sale or during the warranty?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the cash memo, delivery chalan, received chalan, service call report, computer generated copy of letters also produced the statement on affidavit of Swapan Kr. Bhattacharjee. 

5. O.P. did not appear during the time of recording evidence. 

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the points. 

 

Findings and decision:

7. O.P. filed written argument in this case and stated that complainant neglected to follow the guideline while using the photo printer. The warranty period also already expired. O.P. can not provide service after warranty period free of cost.

 

8. Learned advocate  for the petitioner on the other hand argued that the photo printer machine was defective at the beginning.  Printer was not working properly but the service centre did not provide proper service during the warranty period. 

 

9. We have gone through the service call report and found that rat cut down the paper censor, motherboardwas the observation. This is not under warranty. The warranty card is not produced before us. O.P. produced no evidence to support that for rat cutting warranty not available. When any contention is raised it is duty of the party who raised it to support it by giving evidence. Petitioner purchased the photo printer machine on 08.12.16 as per cash memo. On 24.10.17 he produced it before the Scamper Technology service centre within one year from the date of purchase but service was not provided. In Service call report it is written that this is not within warranty.

 

10. Petitioner is entitled to get service free of cost. But that service was not provided. This is deficiency of service by the service centre.  We therefore, direct the O.P. to arrange the repairing of the photo printer machine free of cost or replace it by a new one. Because of the deficiency of service of the O.P. petitioner suffered. So, we direct the O.P. to pay compensation amounting to Rs.7,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand) and repair or replace the photo printer machine. Direction is to be followed within one month. If the compensation amount not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA