SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER: - One Fidual Mustafa calls in question here in this complaint the deficiencies in service caused by the O.Ps in supplying the toner within the appropriate period subsequent to purchasing a Colour Photocopier as is dealt in this complaint.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. O.P.No.1 appeared through its Advocates and filed written version. O.P.No.2 appeared through his Advocates but subsequently failed to file any written version, hence O.P.No.2 was set ex- parte. Even after receipt of notice of this case, O.P.No.3 remained all along absent; hence O.P.No.3 was also set ex- parte.
3. Perused the written version submitted by O.P.No.1, verified the documents extended from the side of the complainant.
4. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Color Photocopier manufactured by O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 for a consideration of Rs.2.05 lakhs paid at Sambalpur and delivered at Sambalpur. The copier of this brand was obtained on the pursuation of Mr, Kali Mishra, O.P.No.2. The Photocopier was installed at Sambalpur by O.P.No.2 during 3rd week of April, 2014.
5. The claim of the complainant is as follows
(i) The O.P.No.2 has been deficient in service for not making any adequate arrangement of stock and supply of compatible toner manufactured by O.P.No.1 for the copier which is also manufactured by O.P.No.1 as part and parcel of its responsibility and after sale obligation as a result of which the complainant had to wait for 15 days for the toner thereby the machine remaining non-operational during the intervening period of requirement and supply. Inordinate delay in supply of toner by O.P.Nos.1 & 2 at Sambalpur is a chronic problem causing considerable mental agony and harassment as to the complainant.
(ii) During 1st week of September, 2014, the complainant required toner from O.P.No.2 which it could not supply in the pretext of lack of stock with it. By this time the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 have engaged O.P.No.3 as their local distributor. Its local distributor Sri Bhola Shankar Mohatta m on the 4th week of September came with a non-branded toner by stating that Sri Kali Mishra of O.P.No.2 has sent this toner for the use in Photocopier because at that time they do not have stock of their own product. Sri Bhola Shankar Mohattam, O.P.No.3 told that Sri Kali Mishra, O.P.No.2 has confirmed the compatibility of the non-branded toner being approved by the manufacturer, O.P.No.1. Therefore, according to the assurance of Sri Kali Mishra through Sri Bholana Shanka Mohattam the refilling for the said toner was allowed in the equipment.
(iii) That the toner supplied by O.P.No.2 is in compatible for which the Photocopier got ruined and became defunct and remained also non-operational. Such fact was reported to O.P.No.2 through O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.2 in turn promised to send their engineer. This promise remained in promise and no engineer attended for any repairing. The complainant had to send e-mail on dt.25.10.2014 followed with a notice dated.29.10.2014 sent through registered post duly received by O.P.No.2. This O.P. continued to remain indifferent and totally unmindful to the sufferings and miseries of the complainant, who had purchased the Photocopier in replacement and substituted of his earlier black and white Photocopier of the old technology, which he had purchased and operated exclusively in support of his livelihood through his self-employmen And that caused the complainant ultimately to resort for another Colour Photocopier with borrowed money in the substances of his livelihood.
6. Thus, the complainant has claimed to:
(a) refund the price of Rs.2.05 lakhs paid for the equipment with interest 12% per annum from dt.29.10.2014 till actual payment and take back their defunct Photocopier.
(b) give a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for causing mental agony, harassment and inconvenience And
( c ) pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following 3 decisions in support of his case:
(i) 1996(1) CPR-54 (National Commission)
(Pramod Kumar Bothra Vrs. Ishwar Chand Sharma )
(ii) (2004) 8 CLD 287 (SCDRC-Ori) Odisha State Commission)
(Prem Prakash Panigrahi Vrs. Banka Jewellers)
(iii) 2002 NCJ-582 (NC) National Commission
(Hummingbird Automo\ation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. D.Thanigayelan)
8. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that the complainant has produced all the relevant papers/documents in his support of his case and the matter has not been countered properly from the side of the O.Ps. Though the written version from the side of O.P.No.1 was submitted, we could not find any substantial justification in the averments of the said O.P. and the version was not up to the satisfaction of the Forum in denying the same but it simply found to be a reply submitted whimsically in a routine manner without any just and proper reasoning met there for. That apart, the other 2 O.Ps also remained absent and did not like to participate in the hearing.
9. In the result, we find every justification in resorting this complaint by the complainant against the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 and it is but clear that the O.Ps concerned have altogether neglected causing deficiency in service and that of playing unfair trade practice in dealing with purchase and supply of Photocopier and the parts thereof with the complainant and therefore are liable for the same.
10. However, in the premises, we consider that it is the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 who will directly come in dealing with the matter and O.P.No.3 being the supplier of the material has nothing to do except that in ventilating and posing the problem before the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 as mediator in between the complainant and said O.Ps and therefore, is kept away from any responsibility in the matter.
11. It is therefore, ordered that the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally responsible and they have to refund the price of Rs.2.05 lakhs(Rupees Two Lakhs Five thousand) with an interest 9 (Nine) percent per annum from dt.29.10.2014 till the date of actual payment to the complainant and complainant has to return back the defunct Photocopier. As regards compensation and litigation expenses are concerned, the O.Ps concerned have to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) respectively . The order has to be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded compensation and cost amount will also carry interest 9 (Nine) per cent per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.
