Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.33/2008, Mr.Rajan Alimchandani v/s. The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. and another; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum. Appeal is filed by M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd., feeling aggrieved by the impugned order where a direction was given against its Branch Manager at Unit Nos.1&2, Ground floor, Enterprise Centre, C-75, Off.Nehru Road, Next to Orchid Hotel, Vile Parle(East), Mumbai 400 099 (original opponent no.2). At the outset, it may be mentioned that original opponent no.1- The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. did not file any appeal and, thus, conceded to the impugned order. This appeal by order dated 14/01/2013 stood dismissed against it.
It is a case of respondent/original complainant - Mr.Rajan Alimchandani (herein after referred as ‘complainant’) that he had purchased the product of the appellant viz. ‘HP-F-2120’ Printer on 29/07/2007. To his surprise, printer was only able to print 22 copies with the ink cartridge provided. When he took up the matter with the dealer – M/s.Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. where from he had purchased the printer, he was told that the cartridge supplied was only a ‘Start up’ or ‘Demonstration cartridge’, which has less printing capacity and the regular black ink cartridge needs to be purchased. Feeling aggrieved by such representation and, particularly, raising the point of lack of information that initially only ‘Start up or demonstration cartridge’ (or introductory cartridge) was supplied, a consumer complaint was filed and the dispute was settled in favour of the complainant in following words:-
“The complaint is partly allowed.
The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant, an amount in sum of `650/- towards cost of regular cartridge and compensation in sum of `10,000/-
The Opposite Parties shall further pay to the Complainant, costs in sum of `2,000/-.
Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall comply with the foregoing order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay to the Complainant; interest @ 9% p.a., on the amounts awarded here-in-above as from the date of expiry of stipulated period of four weeks till realization of entire amount by the Complainant.
Opposite Party No. 2 is hereby directed to discontinue adoption of unfair trade practice by not supplying an ‘introductory’ or ‘start-up’ cartridge along with sale of a new printer, but shall supply a regular cartridge at the time of sale of a new printer and necessary instructions may be given to the dealers who sale articles of the Opposite Party no.2.”
Heard Mr.Pranav Sampat –Advocate along with Mr.Wasim Qureshi-Advocate i/b.Mr.Rajesh Ravindran-Advocate for the appellant and Respondent – original complainant in person.
Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the information supplied to every purchaser including the complainant on the packing material itself and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
“Contents:
· HP Deskjet F2120 All-in-One Printer,
Scanner, Copier
· Introductory HP 21 Black Inkjet Print
Cartridge, 3 ml
· Introductory HP 22 Tri-colour Inkjet
Print Cartridge, 3 ml
· Setup guide
· Power supply
· Power cord
· USB cable”
(underlining provided)
Said material according to appellant clearly mentions, “Introductory HP 21 Black Inkjet Print Cartridge, 3 ml. Thus, according to them introductory cartridge which contains less content than normal content of 5 ml. bound to give less output and therefore, there is neither any misrepresentation nor any false representation on the part of company to hold that there is a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in terms the consumer complaint alleges. It is not in dispute that HP Deskjet F2120 All-in-One Printer, Scanner, Copier is a multi job product. The relevant statement (of the grievance) from the consumer complaint reads as under:-
“During the course of my work I was surprised to find that this branded new printer gave just about 22 print copies. Immediately I telephoned Mr.Naresh Meghani, Sales Manager of M/s.Bitsy Infotech on 19th December 2007. Mr.Meghani on telephone informed me that the cartridge supplied with printer was a ‘start up’ or ‘Demonstration Cartridge’ which was designed to give limited print copies and I would have to purchase a regular black ink at an additional cost of `750/- and coloured cartridge at a cost of `950/-.
I protested that this was Unfair Trade Practices and I would not have purchased their brand if I was informed of this discrepancy. Mr.Meghani informed that he would ask the Director of the company to get in touch with me on 20th December 2007. As the director did not bother to contact me I reiterated our conversation vide my letter 23rd December 2007 giving them three days to respond. Photocopy of the said letter is attached hereto marked as Exhibit B.”
As earlier pointed out, the list of contents on the packing of the new printer cum copier, etc. clearly mentions about supply of introductory cartridge containing 3 ml of ink and this introductory cartridge was duly supplied. Therefore, it is not that something misleading is represented to the complainant to induce him to buy the product. Therefore, the case, per se, would not fall within the scope and ambit of section 2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for brevity), which defines ‘unfair trade practice’. Complainant’s case is also not to this effect of any false representation.
There cannot be any deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Act, since it is neither a case nor it is established that the product supplied was a faulty one or there is defect in a product purchased.
It appears that the consumer complaint was contested and even the appeal is filed by M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd., where Branch Manager(opponent no.2) was employed. Therefore, mis-description of the party in the given circumstances can be overlooked and the real contestant is the appellant. It may be clarified that Branch Manager being the employee in the organization, is a separate and distinct legal person, within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Act than the company itself where he is employed. Any deficiency in service on the part of ‘Branch Manager’ is to be looked into with relevance to the duties and responsibility given to him by his employer company. The company itself is a separate and distinct juridic person.
Since neither any deficiency nor any unfair trade practice is established against the appellant company or, for that purpose, its Branch Manager, at Unit Nos.1&2, Ground floor, Enterprise Centre, C-75, Off.Nehru Road, Next to Orchid Hotel, Vile Parle(East), Mumbai 400 099; the impugned order would not sustain against them. It may be further pointed out that in view of section 14 of the Act, the directions given to opponent no.2 -Branch Manager, M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd., supra, to discontinue adoption of unfair trade practice by not supplying an introductory or start up cartridge along with sale of new printer and to supply a regular cartridge at the time of sale is unwarranted and looking to the relief which could be granted u/sec.14, particularly, section 14(1)(f) of the Act, it exhibit an instance of exercise of unvested jurisdiction by the forum.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 13/07/2010 as against appellant -M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd. /original opponent no.2, is set aside.
In the give circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 16th January, 2013.
