BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 24th of March 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.205/2010
(Admitted on 31.07.2010)
Mrs. Prafulla N. Kulal,
Wo Nagesh K,
Prop. Pranam Graphics,
Ground Floor,
Medifair Complex,
Karangalpady,
MANGALORE 575 003. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Sathish K.)
VERSUS
1. Jeevan Dsouza,
2. Kevin Misquith
Opposite Party No.1 & 2 Partners
Mile Stone Computers & Peripherals,
Sales & Services,
S.14, Medifair Complex,
Karangalpady,
Mangalore 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. K. Prithviraj Rai)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant submitted that, she is running business and doing screen printing, offset printing, pre press design and all other computer work designs under the name and style of ‘Pranam Graphics’, DTP Centre. It is stated that, for her business requirement, she had approached Opposite Parties for purchasing HP Laserjet 2200 printing machine with printing support of Master sheet and butter paper printing with heater support. In view of her requirement, Opposite Parties were assured to supply Laserjet 2200 printer to her shop, at that time the complainant also sold her old Laserjet 2200 Printer to Opposite Parties for reasonable value. On 25.02.2010 Opposite Parties were delivered HP Colour Laserjet CP2025N Pinter to the complainant shop and represented to the complainant that HP Colour Laserjet CP2025N Printer is also having the same features and also supported by Master Sheet and Butter Paper printing with the support of heater facility. But contrary to the Opposite Parties aforesaid assurance, the complainant came to note that the aforesaid printer is not supported by the heater facility, due to non-providing of heater facility, the complainant is unable to get proper master sheet printout and butter sheet print out from aforesaid printer. She has stated that, the above said fact came to know only at the time of delivering the printer to her shop and further stated that, the Opposite Parties have not delivered any catalogue or other description about the said printer. Further alleged that, the Opposite Parties were suppressed to the complainant about the discontinuation of H.P Laser Jet 2200 Printer in the market by the company. The complainant after came to know about the unavailability of heater facility, she approached the Opposite Parties shop, but the Opposite Parties have not cooperated to rectify the problem of the said printer and she has sent e-mail to the H.P. Company even though the Opposite Parties failed to exchange the above said printer and they have misrepresented the complainant, which according to the complainant amounts to deficiency and filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties under Section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction from this Forum to exchange the Laser Jet CP2025N Printer or in the alternative refund the amount paid by the complainant and also claimed Rs.37,500/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. The Opposite Parties have appeared through their counsel filed version, the purchase of the printer and date of the purchase and the invoice issued by them are all admitted. It is stated that, third week of February 2010, the complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Parties, made enquiry about the printers available in the market and purchased the HP Company product and the Opposite Parties have also provided the catalogue published by the HP Company for the month of February 2010. The complainant after going through the catalogue, which gave complete description of the products, the complainant opted for HP Colour Laser Jet CP 2025N. As per the choice of the complainant, the Opposite Parties gave quotation and the complainant purchased the above product with full knowledge. It is denied that, the Opposite Parties represented to the complainant that HP Colour Laser Jet CP 2025N is also having features of Laser Jet 2200 Printer. It is stated that, the complainant has opted for the type of the machine according to her choice. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mrs. Prafulla N. Kulal (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. One Mr.Panduranga V (CW2) filed affidavit on behalf of the Complainant. Ex C1 to C9 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. One Mr. Kevin Misquith (RW1) – Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Documents produced by the Opposite Parties are marked as Doc.No.1 to Doc.No.5 as listed in the annexure in detail. The complainant as well as the Opposite Parties have produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii) : As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, it is admitted that, the Complainant had purchased HP Colour Laserjet CP2025N Printer from the Opposite Parties on 25.02.2010 as per Invoice No.120 and paid a sum Rs.43,500/- by way of cheque dated 01.03.2010. It is also admitted that, at the time of purchasing the above said Laserjet Printer, the Complainant sold her old Laserjet Printer to the Opposite Parties for reasonable price.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, according to the Complainant, she purchased the above said Laserjet CP 2025N Printer for her business i.e., doing screen printing, offset printing, pre-press design and for all other computer work designs. The allegation of the Complainant is that, she approached the Opposite Parties for purchasing HP Laserjet 2200 printing machine with printing support of Master sheet and butter paper printing with heater support. The Opposite Parties assured to supply Laserjet 2200 printer to her shop but on 25.02.2010 the Opposite Parties delivered HP Colour Laserjet CP2025N Pinter and represented that the said printer is having the same features i.e., Laserjet 2200 printer but contrary to the above, when the Complainant was using the aforesaid Printer for her DTP work, she came to know that the aforesaid colour Jet printer is not supported by the heater facility, due to non-providing of heater facility in the aforesaid printer, she is unable to get proper master sheet printout and butter sheet print out from aforesaid printer. After knowing the above said facts, she approached the Opposite Parties several times of exchange of the Laserjet Printer and requested to supply the right printer again but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same and hence she came up with this complaint and filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C9.
On the contrary, the Opposite Parties submitted that, the Complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party and made enquiry about the printers available in the market and she wanted to purchase the product manufactured by HP and the Opposite Party provided the catalogue published by HP applicable for the month of February 2010. After going through the catalogue which gave complete description of the products. The Complainant opted for HP Colour Laserjet CP2025N Printer. As per the choice of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties gave quotation specifying the rate for the Printer and being satisfied with the quotation, the Complainant asked to supply the above printer and the Opposite Parties delivered the same to the Complainant and stated that there is no deficiency and filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced 5 documents.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence and admitted facts, we find that, the Opposite Parties delivered the HP Colour Laserjet Printer CP2025N to the Complainant’s shop on 25.02.2010. The Complainant in her complaint as well as in affidavit of evidence filed by her specifically admitted that, she had issued a post dated cheque i.e., dated 01.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.43,500/-. When that being the case, if really the Opposite Parties made a false representation or if the Complainant had any problem regarding the printer, she could have approached the Opposite Parties during the period between 25.02.2010 to 02.03.2010 because there were 5 days gap between the date of delivery and receipt of the payment. On perusal of the documents on record, we find that, it is the duty of the Complainant to check the Laserjet Printer CP2025N before delivery or atleast after the delivery and check whether the said Printer has the same features of earlier Laserjet Printer 2200 as required by her. After taking delivery of the same and after paying the entire amount, one cannot contend that the Opposite Parties or the seller has made false representation because it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to verify and check before purchasing the product. She had an enough time to check the Laserjet Printer delivered by the Opposite Parties. If at all, the Opposite Parties made a false representation or if the printer has no same features of earlier Laserjet Printer she should have returned to the Opposite Parties immediately. In the instant case, no such attempt has been made by the Complainant is fatal to her case. The Complainant ought to have tested the features before purchasing or selecting the Printer, not after using the Printer for many days. In view of the above discussion, we hold that, there is no merit in this complaint and deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mrs. Prafulla N. Kulal – Complainant.
CW2 - Mr.Panduranga V – witness of the Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1 – 25.02.2010:Invoice No.120 issued by the Opposite Parties.
Ex.C2 – 09.06.2010:Legal Notice issued by the complainant.
Ex.C3 – Acknowledgement.
Ex.C4 – Acknowledgement.
Ex.C5 – 19-06-2010 – Reply Notice issued by the Opposite Parties.
Ex.C6 – 21-01-2010 – Trade Licence.
Ex.C7 – E-mail Letter.
Ex C8 – Copy of the Master Sheet.
Ex C9 – Copy of the Butter sheet.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Mr. Kevin Misquith – Opposite Party No.2.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Doc No.1– Catalogue issued by HP for the month of August 2009.
Doc No.2 – Catalogue issued by HP for the month of February 2010
Doc No.3 – Copy of the quotation dated 23.02.2010.
Doc No.4 – Tax Invoice issued by Bharat IT Distributors.
Doc No.5 – Printout containing Page A & Page B.
Dated:24/03/2011 PRESIDENT
