Manager,Hewlett Packard Sales Pvt Proprietor,Hard N Soft
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. K.Ramanath has filed this complaint before the forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the contentions of the complainant is as follows:- the complainant is dealt with computer field and on discussion with the Sales Executive of the second opposite party, the complainant had decided to purchase a HP Lazer jet 1160 Printer from the second opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. As such, on 18-12-2006, the complainant purchased the above set for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- and receipt for the said amount was issued by the Service Engineer to the complainant. But the Lazer Printer noticed defects from the very beginning of its installation, and it could not produce copies clearly, and the prints had no depth and having narrow version, and are not legible. Complainant had communicated the defects of the set to the opposite parties including their Service engineer. 2nd opposite party had informed the complainant that they have informed the details to their company (1st opposite party) and problem will be settled at the earliest. The complainant had also informed the problems to the 1st opposite party. But the complainant had not obtained any positive help from the opposite parties. Since, there was no relief from the opposite parties; the complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for compensations. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Both parties appeared before the forum. 1st opposite party filed version and second opposite party had not filed any version except engagement of advocate. On the side of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and produced documents-Exts. A1 to A3 series were marked. 3. In the version, 1st opposite party has stated that they supplies its product in the market for sale through wholesalers who further sell it to the retailer, and that on commercial terms of sale, the 1st opposite party has no privity of contract with retailer and has no control over terms. It is further stated that the second opposite party is not the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party, and that 1st opposite party is unaware what has transpired between the complainant and 2nd opposite party and that defects of the set may for various reasons like fungus infection, mishandling, inexperienced handling and due to many other external factors. It is further stated that for the breaches, if any, only the second opposite party is solely liable for the same. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Relief and costs. 5. Issues 1 and 2: The documents produced by the complainant in evidence - Ext. A1 is the original cash receipt dated 18-12-2006 for Rs. 12,500/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchasing the set. Ext. A2 is the information sheet supplied along with the set. Ext. A3 series are the Printer Test Pages and the notice dated 09-10-2007 addressed to the opposite parties regarding the complaint of the set. On a careful reading of the documents given in evidence, it can be seen that the contentions of the complainant are genuine. In this matter, it is to be noticed that the second opposite party has not taken any earnest steps to rectify the defects or return the price of the set to the complainant. In spite of repeated request from the side of the complainant the second opposite party has not turned up to respond the grievances of the complainant properly. In this case, by delivery of the low quality and cheap product to the complainant, the second opposite party has cheated the genuine customer and committed unfair trade practices. For this, the second opposite party is to compensate to the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part oaf the opposite party. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed. 6. In the result, we direct the second opposite party to return the price of the set i.e. Rs. 12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant after taking back the defective set from the complainant, and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for mental agony and inconvenience of the complainant and a cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for this proceedings. We further direct the second opposite party to pay the above said amounts to the complainant and comply the formalities within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 25th day of July, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH Sd/- SRI. N.SHAJITHA BEEVI APPENDIX Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - K.Ramanath Ext. A1 - Original Cash receipt dated 18-12-2006 Ext. A2 - Information sheet Ext. A3 - Series of printer test pages Evidence of the Opposite parties: NIL // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
