Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturing company of electronics articles and the Opposite Party No.1 is a Dealer. The Opposite Party No.2 – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., had floated a scheme under which, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; had given an offer to supply a laser printer free of cost on purchase of 43 cm. Samsung TFT Monitor. That offer was valid during the period 20/3/2006 to 28/3/2006. During this period of offer and on 27/3/2006, the Complainant purchased a 43 cm. Samsung TFT Monitor from the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; on making payment of an amount in sum of Rs.14,375/- for which, the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; issued a receipt. [2] Under the scheme floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; a purchaser of monitor was required to send a demand draft for an amount in sum of Rs.999/- towards handling & delivery charges for delivery of a laser printer free of cost. The Complainant remitted a demand draft for an amount in sum of Rs.999/- through a courier to the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. [3] It is the case of the Complainant that even after repeated requests, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; did not supply her, a laser printer free of cost. After repeated reminders & follow-ups, the Complainant received a letter dtd.3/10/2006 from the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; without any justifiable reason for non-delivery of laser printer. Ultimately, the Complainant realized that she was being cheated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; and filed present consumer complaint before this Forum, seeking for a direction, as against the Opposite Parties, to supply her a laser printer free of cost or in the alternative to refund an amount in sum of Rs.14,375/-, paid by her towards purchase of a monitor as well as compensation. [4] The Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; appeared and filed its written version of defence and took stand that the scheme of getting laser printer for an amount in sum of Rs.999/- on purchase of a monitor was floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; and the Opposite Party No.1 just acted as a dealer. Accordingly, monitor purchased by the Complainant was delivered to the Complainant and it was for the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; to supply a laser printer on receipt of an amount in sum of Rs.999/- from the customer. Thus, according to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; scheme being floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; it was not responsible for non-supply of laser printer to the Complainant. [5] The Opposite Party No.2 – Company; was served with a notice of appearance issued by this Forum, under RPAD. The Complainant has produced on the record a certificate dtd.10/1/2007, issued by Superintendent of Post to the effect that postal article was tendered to the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. Thus, despite due service of notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; chose to remain absent and did not file its written version of defence on the record, as called for by this Forum and as such, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; came to be set ex-parte. [6] The Complainant filed her rejoinder to the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and took stand that the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; was also equally responsible for deficiency in service. Parties have filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant document. [7] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. [8] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service on account of non-supply of a laser printer to her free of cost? | YES. However, only as against the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. | 2. | To what relief the Complainant is entitled to? | Direction as against the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; to supply a laser printer free of cost. | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [9] The Complainant has produced on the record a copy of bill, under which the Complainant purchased a TFT monitor manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; from the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; alongwith accessories for total sum of Rs.47,300/-. The Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; has also not denied purchase of a monitor by the Complainant for an amount in sum of Rs.14,375/-. It is a common case of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; that the scheme was floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; to supply a laser printer free of cost upon purchase of TFT monitor by a customer on receipt of an amount in sum of Rs.999/- from the customer towards handling & delivery charges. The Complainant has produced on the record a copy of demand draft dtd.31/3/2006, which shows that the Complainant had sent a demand draft for an amount in sum of Rs.999/- to the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. Thus, all the requirements, which were to be complied with by a customer to avail the benefit under the scheme floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; were complied with by the Complainant. Still then, the Complainant did not receive a laser printer from the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. [10] The Complainant has produced on the record a copy of one letter dtd.3/10/2006, which is on the letterhead of the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. By that letter, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; informed the Complainant that they had analyzed the claim submitted by the Complainant, but the claim was not valid, as it was incomplete for certain reasons mentioned in the letter. In the letter, the reason for repudiation as was given was – ‘WRONG DD NAME’. Thus, according to the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; the Complainant had mentioned wrong name on the demand draft for an amount in sum of Rs.999/-, which was a mandatory condition for redemption of a laser printer. [11] Now, the Complainant has annexed to the complaint, a copy of the print-out of the advertisement, which shows that there was no condition incorporated therein to mention a particular name on the demand draft for an amount in sum of Rs.999/-. A copy of the demand draft reveals that the Complainant had drawn the demand draft in the name of – ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’, the Opposite Party No.2 herein. Same name appears on the letterhead of letter dtd.3/10/2006, issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. Thus, there does not appear to be any discrepancy with regard to the name of the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; on the demand draft. Still then on that technical ground, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; repudiated the claim of the Complainant for supply of a laser printer free of cost. It appears that the ground mentioned in the letter dtd.3/10/2006 was afterthought, which did not appear in the advertisement and thus, for unjustifiable & arbitrary reasons, the Complainant’s claim for supply of a laser printer, free of cost, was turned down. As a result of this, we hold the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; guilty of deficiency in service. [12] No doubt, a monitor was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; but the scheme for supply of a laser printer, free of cost, was floated by the Opposite Party No.2 – Company. It is not the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.2 – Complainant; had supplied a laser printer to the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; and the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; has misappropriated or retained the same wrongfully. It could not be because, the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; was expected to supply a laser printer, free of cost, on receipt of handling & delivery charges of an amount in sum of Rs.999/- from the Complainant. Thus, on delivery of monitor, the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; had no role to play in the matter of supply of a laser printer to the Complainant. A customer was supposed to get a laser printer directly from the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; and therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 – Dealer; would not be guilty of deficiency in service. [13] In view of above, we hold the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; guilty of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on account of failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 – Company; to supply a laser printer, free of cost, to the Complainant. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 is hereby directed to supply to the Complainant, a laser printer of recent model or latest make, free of cost. The Opposite Party No.2 shall also pay to the Complainant, costs in sum of Rs.5,000/-. The Opposite Party No.2 shall comply with the foregoing order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is hereby made clear that in case of failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 to comply with the foregoing order within the stipulated period, the Opposite Party No.2 shall also be liable to pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.100/- per day, by way of penalty, as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of eight weeks till the foregoing order is complied with. The complaint, as against the Opposite Party No.1, stands dismissed. Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands rejected. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
