Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 486.
Instituted on : 20.10.2015.
Decided on : 11.05.2016.
Kunal Juneja, Advocate, son of Shri Vijay Kumar Juneja resident of House No.1065, Inside Delhi Gate, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Kasturi Mega Ventures Private Limited Franchisee of STAR CJ Network India Private Limited Khasara Nos.(47/19/2, 10/1, 11/2/1, 12/12/2, 19/2, 20/1) village Taj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, Gurgaon, Haryana 123503. Regd. Office E-7/88, Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Arera Colony. Bhopal Madhya Pardesh.
- Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited 24, Salarpuria, Arena, Hosur Main Road, Audogodi, Bangalore 560030 through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that opposite party no.1 approached the complainant telephonically and introduced himself as authorized dealer of HP Printers and one of the leading online shopping network of Asia. It is averred that the complainant ordered one printer of HP Deskjet 1510, All-in-one printer manufactured by HP Company/opposite party No.2 vide invoice no.201508120832 dated 12.08.2015. It is averred that just after 15 days of its purchase the said printer started creating problem like tearing the papers while processing, stopping of printer during processing and faded/not readable prints and further the said printer does use to get hanged & locked during processing. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party but they told that the fault would be rectified by opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer of the same. But the complainant shocked to know that opposite party no.1 is not the authorized dealer of opposite party no.2 and that the opposite party no.1 will get the printer replaced/rectified. It is averred that complainant requested both the parties to replace the printer but to no effect. As such it is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the value of printer as they provided defected printer and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite party through registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.01.2016 of this Forum. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its reply submitting therein that complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the printer without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act and without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is not an authorized dealer of the opposite party no.1 and the answering opposite party is neither responsible nor liable for the assurances given by the opposite party no.1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per Invoice Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased an HP Deskjet printer for a sum of Rs.2898/- from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that as per documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 Shopcj.com is an online shopping site in India launched by SHOPCJ Network Private Limited and deals in multifunctional scanners and printers from HP, Canon, Intex, Epson and many more. As per the invoice Ex.C1 opposite party no.1 is the franchisee of STAR CJ and opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of HP Printers. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, just after 15 days of its purchase the said printer started creating problems like tearing the papers while processing, stopping of printer during processing and faded/not readable prints and used to get hanged & locked and the complainant contacted the opposite parties for removing the defect/replacement of printer but the same was not done. On the other hand, contention of opposite party no.2 is that opposite party no.1 is not the authorized dealer of the opposite party no.2 and as such there is no liability of opposite party no.2.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per contention of complainant, the printer purchased from the opposite party no.1 was defective from the very beginning. On the other hand, it is observed that opposite party no.1 has not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and was proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.1 has nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding defects in the alleged printer stands proved. Regarding the plea taken by the opposite party no.2 that opposite party no.1 is not the authorized dealer of opposite party no.1, reliance has been placed upon the documents Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 whereby Shopcj.com is an online shopping site in India launched by SHOPCJ Network Private Limited and deals in multifunctional scanners and printers from HP, Canon, Intex, Epson and many more and as per the invoice Ex.C1 opposite party no.1 is the franchisee of STAR CJ. Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of HP Printers and no other document is placed on record by the opposite party no.2 to prove that opposite party no.1 is not authorized dealer of opposite party no.1. Regarding the other plea taken by opposite party no.2 of expert report and compliance under section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle repeatedly taken to service station for repairs-The manufacturing defect, must be assumed-Onus of proof shifts upon OP, and it is further held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect”.
7. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such it is directed that opposite party no. 1 & 2 shall refund the price of printer i.e Rs.2898/-(Rupees two thousand eight hundred ninety eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.10.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant jointly and severally within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. However complainant is directed to hand over the printer in question to the opposite parties. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
