JUDGEMENT Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant as a poor lady for her personal employment and for earning her livelihood purchased a printer bearing Model No. Konica Minolta Bizhub C-200 at a price of Rs.2,28,821/- from the op on 15.07.2009 and same was installed on the site of the complainant on 15.07.2009 and with the help of printer the complainant used to print on papers with assistance of her unemployed son and before sale of the printer to the complainant, op verbally assured that with the help of that printer she would be able to earn Rs.5,000/- approximately per month and complainant was allured to purchase the said printer and ultimately selling all her ornaments and other items paid this entire amount and purchased it and said printer was under the coverage of warranty of one year but fact remains within two months from installation, printer started different type of troubles and op was reported and they sent their service engineer. But somehow removed the defects for the time being but the problem recurred again and again. So, complainant could not use the machine in trouble free condition even for two months at a stretch. Fact remains then within 8 months complainant purchased from the date of purchase of printer, complainant purchased toner amounting to Rs.30,000/- but did not get even 5% monetary return of the amount incurred on purchasing the printer, toners and allied expenditure. Unfortunately some of the Money Receipts on account of purchasing toner are not readily available with the complainant. But after 8 months from installation, the printer broke down completely and the complainant was in utter crisis, both financially and mentally because she lost her entire amount and also lost her entire income. Thereafter complainant forthwith took up the matter with the op who sent their service engineer/technician who checked the printer and opined that as the printer would require thorough repairing what would not be possible at the complainant’s place, so same was taken away by the op to service centre but it may be mentioned in this connection that op did not issue any receipt when they took away the printer with some malafide intention. Thereafter op did not take any action towards returning the printer after necessary repairing and complainant’s son enquired about the fate of the printer time to time personally and over phone but they promised that the printer would be delivered after repairing within one month, but so many months already lapsed it is not yet handed over to the complainant. So finding no other alternative, complainant lodged a complaint before Consumer Affairs Department, West Bengal for her redressal of her grievance to Grievance Cell and mediating officer of the Consumer Affairs Department heard both parties and scrutinized all documents under submission and was of the opinion that complainant should not suffer for unavailability of necessary parts of printer and advised the op to refund a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- within 45 days from 10.12.2012 vide disposal note dated 10.12.2012 of the Consumer Affairs Department. But op did not take any action towards compliance of advice of the Consumer Affairs Department and complainant has not yet received the amount till date. In the above circumstances complainant was compelled to file a complaint before this Forum for harassing and also for deficiency in service on the part of the op and also for loss of her income due to supply of such defective printer and in the result complainant filed this complaint for redressal. On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that at any point of time op never harassed the complainant by any means and the allegation to that effect is completely false and fabricated and another factor is that during the period of the warranty of said printer, the same was used by the complainant with full satisfaction and after that complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with op for the maintenance of the said printer from 15.10.2009 to 14.10.2010 and accordingly during that period op company rendered their service from time to time as and when required and printer was working perfectly all right. The copies/prints produced by the said machine up to 01.10.2010 were 33912 which itself proved the satisfactory performance of the machine. But subsequently before expiry of such contract period on 14.09.2010 a proposal was given from the side of the op to the complainant to renew the AMC for a further period of one year but it was not executed by the complainant. Subsequently op repeatedly requested the complainant to do that but they did not accept it. But the op never lifted the machine from the premises of the complainant nor did they advise the complainant to do so. After expiry of such AMC on 14.10.2010, on 13.12.2012 certain problems with regard to proper functioning of the aforesaid machine was complained by the complainant and therefore on 17.12.2010 proposal for inspection charge was given by the op to the complainant and surprisingly without approving such inspection charge, on 23.12.2010 the complainant brought the said machine to the office of the op at her own cost on the pretext that the shop of the complainant was under renovation at that point of time and thereby assured to make the payment of the inspection charge within 2 days from the date thereof. But therefore complainant did not turn up though regular follow ups were made by the op over phone and also op requested the complainant to do needful and to take back machine. Of late on 25.06.2012 op received an intimation from the Govt. of Consumer’s Affairs Department to attend one tripartite meeting to resolve the complaint lodged by the complainant and in that meeting op submitted all documents in support of their case on 06.07.2012 for perusal and ready reference and since then there was no communication or mediation from the said Department. But subsequently Department passed such order back behind the op which has not been received at any point of time. Since the machine under reference was not under warranty/contract and no inspection charge for inspection of the machine was paid by the complainant thus there was no question of attending the said machine by the op. In fact the said machine was given many satisfactory services till it was under warranty and AMC and the said machine had produced 33912 copies till 01.10.2010. It is further submitted that the op has no fault and practically warranty period already expired of the printer which was purchased was found not functioning for some parts. But op is willing to change this part subject to payment of the parts but for complainant’s inactive effort, the matter could not be properly adjudicated and now complainant is trying to get the entire money of the article from the op who is mere a seller and when warranty period has already been expired, therefore op has no liability to do so. In the circumstances complaint should be dismissed. Decision with reasons After considering the entire argument of Ld. Lawyer of the complainant and the Ld. Lawyer of the op also the complaint including the written version, it is undisputed fact that complainant purchased the said machine on 15.07.2009 at a cost of Rs.2,28,821/- and from the copy of Annexure-1 dated 15.07.2009 it is found that complainant purchased it from the op and the said printer was installed on 15.07.2009 from the op vide Anexure-2. But from the said voucher (retail invoice) it is clear that op sold it without any warranty clause and in the said retail invoice there is no note to that effect who shall be the liable for warranty and what was the term of warranty. But in the photocopy of installation report it is noted that the equipment warranty is only applicable if the copier and accessories are used with voltage stabilizer supplied/approved by IML. The period of free services for 3 months or 50,000 copies whichever is earlier. But at about warranty there is no paper. So, it is clear that complainant sold the foreign article, suppressing the fact of actual warranty period and at the same time no certificate was granted by the ops that the Digitial Colour Printer was free from any defect. No such company certificate was also supplied by the op to the purchaser. So, apparently complainant to some extent was allured by the op in purchasing the said printer. But fact remains that it was purchased by the complainant on 15.07.2009 and since 15.07.2009 it had been operated by the complainant and no doubt up to August-2010 op had random gave service to the complainant and after that there is no question of giving any free service. But admitted fact is that complainant paid AMC charge for AMC from 15.10.2009 to 14.10.2010 and during that period there was any problem as faced by the complainant for running the said printer was duly entertained by the op and op always sent their mechanical engineer and up 01.10.2010 the said printer re-produced 33912 prints. But after 14.10.2010 complainant did not renew the AMC. But from the op’s own version, it is proved that the said machine is still under the custody of the op, but op has tried to convince that as because further AMC was not renewed, it was impossible for them to repair it. But it is unfortunate that op did not give any service and ultimately after 14.10.2010 but before that the machine was placed to the op. But it was the duty of the op to make it trouble free and to handover it to the complainant but that has not been done on the ground the complainant did not renew the AMC. But it is fact that during AMC period the said printer was placed to op and op ought to have repaired it and handed over to the complainant but he did not do that stating that the parts are not available. Then question is when it was sold by the op to the complainant invariably op was aware of the fact that if any problem in running the machine would be found in near future the parts cannot be available. But at the time of selling all those problems were not ventilated by op as seller to the complainant and no doubt for taking such unfair practice by the op, complainant suffered mental pain and agony to some extent. But it is true that complainant purchased that printer knowing fully well about foreign origin of the said printer. But anyhow complainant did not realize that the said printer shall be a heavy burden in future for its maintenance cost but after purchase within one year she realized that cost of maintenance of such printer is high when she again and again requested the op for replacing of the said printer. Anyhow op is not the manufacturer of the printer and warranty period already expired and also AMC period had already expired. But the truth is that within the AMC period she placed the said printer to op for repairing and fact remains op failed to repair it for want of parts. But now at the time of hearing the argument we have gathered that op is willing to return it after proper repairing. However after giving a thoughtful approach in respect of present affairs and also the pain and sufferings of the complainant for purchasing a foreign article (printer) from the op without collecting the voucher of foreign article we find that the present matter was duly considered by the Consumer Affairs Department. But invariably complainant can get such relief because op failed to repair the same within the AMC period (14.10.2010) and it is also fact the op did not repair it as because they demanded from complainant to file application for further renewal of AMC. But question of filing further renewal of AMC shall arise if the service was given by the op in time but in this case op did not give proper service within time. So, in the above situation we feel that op must have to repair the said printer free from all trouble and removing all problems and making it usable smoothly at their own cost and handed over it to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and after handing over the same to the complainant, op shall have to give one year free service to the complainant in running the said printer. But if any parts are required to be changed the market price of the said parts shall be paid by the complainant but from service shall be given by op to the complainant at free of cost. In view of the above situation and also relying upon the entire materials, we believe that complainant is legally and morally entitled to get the said printer from the op in running condition free from any trouble and on and from the date receipt of the said printer from the op in good condition, op shall have to give free service for another one year to the complainant, but in respect of change of any materials complainant shall have to pay that cost of that materials. But no other relief can be granted in favour of the complainant on the ground op is not manufacturer of the article, it is foreign made article, warranty expired and further fact is that refund of money cannot be granted in such circumstances. So, accordingly we dispose of this matter by directing the op to handover the said printer after thorough repairing and making it usable day to day and it must be done within one month from the date of this order and at the time of handover the same to the complainant and such fit certificate shall be issued by the op. But op shall have to handover a certificate that they shall have to render one year free service but regarding parts it shall be supplied by the op but cost shall be paid by the complainant during the period of free service. Thus the complaint succeeds. Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint be and the same is disposed on contest without any cost against the op as per spirit of the order and direction as made in the body of the judgement and op shall have to comply the order within one month from the date of this order and failing which op shall have to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and that shall be paid forthwith if order is not complied by the op. Op is hereby directed to submit a certificate before this Forum that he has complied the order as per spirit of order and terms of the judgement of this Forum and if it is not submitted and if op is found reluctant to comply the spirit of this order, in that case op shall have to refund Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. The entire judgement shall be complied by the parties and if complainant is found dissatisfied in that case approach before this Forum with such prayer and matter shall be monitored accordingly by this Forum.
| | [HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER | | 
