This is a case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A brief fact of the complainants’ case is that, the complainants were carrying on printing business under the name and style of “West Bengal Fine Art Press” at Dinbazar, Jalpaiguri. They had purchased one inkjet printer GONGZHENG INKJET PRINTER STAR FIRE bearing Model No. GZM+320SG BEARING on 31.03.2018 and 31.10.2018 for Rs. 10,03,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Three Thousand Only) and Rs. 4,72,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Only) respectively, from O.P. No. 1, against payment made on 31.03.2018 and 31.10.2018 through NEFT from Jalpaiguri. The above printer had been delivered on 25.04.2018 at Jalpaiguri and the Head of the printer on November 2018. The above printer was covered by a warranty for a period of one year, from the date of purchase.

On the very first day the O.P. No. 2 failed to start the printer as the machine was faulty and had given a written declaration to that effect, on 28.09.2018. The printer had finally started functioning on and from November 2018 and within a short time, it was found that the printer was defective. In the month of May 2019 the printer had been repaired by the O.P. at his cost, but again the printer started giving problems. The printer had been repaired thrice till 15.09.2020. But again on 15.09.2020 the printer stopped working totally. The matter had been informed to the O.P. No. 1 over phone and by letters, but they were requested to send the printer Carriage Board to their work-shop at Ahmedabad or to O.P. No. 2, their service provider. Because of urgency the complainants were asked to bring to said Carriage Board to Ahmedabad. Therefore, the complainant No. 2 went to Ahmedabad on 12.10.2020, by flight and the defect was repaired against charge of Rs. 9440/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only). On installation by O.P. No. 2 at Jalpaiguri, the technician had intimated that the parts of the printer had not been repaired at all. The matter had then be intimated to the O.P. NO. 1 by the complainant No. 2, over phone and in response the O.P. No. 1 had sent an email on 11.11.2020, stating that they would check the Carriage Board and would repair it, if repairable and also would not charge anything, otherwise, the complainant would have to purchase a new Carriage Board and the repair charges paid earlier would be adjusted. They also claimed cleaning charges of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) + tax and had also requested the complainants to hand over the parts to Pinkuji, the owner of O.P. No. 2. On 16.11.2020 the complainants had sent the Carriage Board and Head to the O.P. No. 2, through courier. But on 07.12.2020 the O.P. No. 1, vide e-mail expressed their inability to repair the Carriage Board and mentioned the sum of Rs. 87,792/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two Only) as the price of the new Carriage Board. They had also mentioned that the previous amount of Rs. 9,440/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) would be adjusted. They had also sent the Carriage Board and Head to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant no. 2 sent a letter to the O.P. No. 1, on 21.12.2020 requesting them to replace the parts free of cost. But no response had been received from the O.P. No. 1 and thereby causing deficiency in service and commission of unfair trade practices. The complainants then preferred this forum to ventilate their grievances. Hence, this case,

The O.P’s. No. 1 & 2 did appear to contest the claim but finally they abandoned their interest to contest this claim. Hence the case was heard ex-parte.

The complainant no. 2 had examined himself on oath, for himself and on behalf of complainant no. 1 and  had filed certain document as annexure.

In view of the uncontroverted testimony of complainant no. 2, it transpires that the Ink-jet Printer and printer Head had been purchased vide invoice dated 31.03.2018 and 31.10.2018, against warranty of one year. It was also found that the printer could not be started on 25.09.2019 (annexure-3). It further transpires that the printer had been repaired on three (3) occasions, till 15.09.2020, from the testimony of complainant no. 2. The Carriage Board had then been taken to the Work-shop of the O.P. No. 1 at Ahmedabad, incurring an expenditure, of travelling by flight and also repair charges of Rs. 9,440/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only). On returning, the said Carriage Board did not function as the same had not been repaired, after being inspected by the technician of O.P. No. 2. In spite of intimating the matter, the O.P. No. 1 offered by e-mail to repair the same if repairable, otherwise the complainant would have to purchased a new Carriage Board and the previous payment would be adjusted against it. They also claimed cleaning charge of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) + tax. Finally on 07.12.2020 the O.P. No. 1 sent an e-mail to the complainants expressing their inability to repair the same and asked for payment of Rs. 87,792/-(Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two Only) for the new Carriage Board and the previous payment of Rs. 9440/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) would be adjusted against it. Thereafter, the complainant no. 2, sent a letter on 21.12.2020, requesting to replace the parts, free of cost, but no response had been received from the end of O.P. No. 1.

From the above evidence it transpires that the Printer Machine started malfunctioning within the period of warranty and therefore, the O.P. No. 1was liable to repair the said machines either free of cost or replace the same. On the contrary the O.P. No. 1 charged an amount of Rs. 9440/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only), even without repairing, after the complainant No. 2, had himself flown the same to the Work-shop of O.P. No. 1 at Ahmedabad, incurring further expenditure by travelling by flight. The machine could not be made functional and the O.P. No. 1 instead of replacing the same offered the complainant for purchasing of new Carriage Board against payment of Rs. 87792/-(Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two Only).

Therefore, the O.P. No. 1 not only indulged in unfair trade practice by supplying a defective machine, but also committed deficiency of service by not repairing the same or replacing the same within the warranty period. As such, the complainants are entitled to be prayers made by them.

It is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant case be and same is decided ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1 with costs.

The O.P. No. 1 is directed to replace the printers and the Head supplied to the O.P. No. 1 vide invoice nos. HQ3380 dated 31.03.2018 and HQ 2240 dated 31.10.2018, within three (3) weeks from the date of this order.

The O.P. No. 1is further directed to compensate the complainants with an amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) for causing harassment pain and mental agony. The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to pay the sum of Rs. 13,848/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Eight Only) as flight fares.

The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to refund the amount of Rs. 9440/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Only) to the complainants.

The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards Legal Aid Account.

The O.P. No. 1 shall make the above payments, at once failing which an interest @ 8% would be levied upon the above amounts, till the date of payments.

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be handed over to the parties free of cost.