Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/763/2017

ROHIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP INC INFOTEK - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

23 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               318/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     28-11-2017

 Date of Decision           10-05-2018

 

Rohit Gupta,

S/O Sh.Shadi Lal Gupta,

R/O H.No.36 Lane No.6,

Talab Tillo,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

             V/S

1.H.P.Inc.Crown Plaza Surya E-F

  P.C.110065 New Delhi.

2.INFOTEK Systems,4,JDA Plot,

   Behind Shakuntla Cinema,Jammu.

3.Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt.Ltd.

  352-A Gandhi Nagar Jammu-180004.

                                                                                                                                                   Opposite parties

CORAM:

                  Khalil Choudhary    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                              Member.

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

     

Complainant in person present.

Nemo for OPs.

 

                                                    ORDER

                              Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have purchased printer model HP AIO Laserjet Printer HP M 132 nw from OP2 for sale consideration of Rs.13,500/-on,24-01-2017.According to complainant, after short time of its purchase, printer run down, accordingly, complainant approached Service centre, but the service centre could not repair the printer and offered replacement of the printer. Complainant further submitted that the printer worked for nearly 5 ,months and again persisted the same problem and complainant lodged complaint on,25-09-2017 and the service centre tried its best but could not repair the printer and the complainant deposited the printer with the service centre in October,2017 on the assurance that they will set right the device within a period of 15 days of its deposit. Allegation of complainant is that since then he made repeated requests but the service centre failed to make the printer functional and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service. Therefore, complainant seeks direction to Ops for refund of cost of printer to the tune of Rs.13,500/-alongwith compensation and litigation charges to the  tune of Rs.30,000/-.

                       Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 21-02-2018 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Kumar.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of mails.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                Briefly stated case of the complainant is that he had purchased printer model HP AIO Laserjet Printer HP M 132 nw from OP2 for sale consideration of Rs.13,500/-on,24-01-2017.According to complainant, after short time of its purchase, printer run down, accordingly, complainant approached Service centre, but the service centre could not repair the printer and offered replacement of the printer. Complainant further submitted that the printer worked for nearly 5 ,months and again persisted the same problem and complainant lodged complaint on,25-09-2017 and the service centre tried its best but could not repair the printer and the complainant deposited the printer with the service centre in October,2017 on the assurance that they will set right the device within a period of 15 days of its deposit. Allegation of complainant is that since then he made repeated requests but the service centre failed to make the printer functional and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service.

                     The complainant in his own affidavit and  affidavit of Pawan  Kumar have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavit of Pawan Kumar,so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint.

                          This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Kumar which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint,therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to refund the cost of printer to the tune of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-, respectively. The Ops  shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    10-05-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                            

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member