This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, The Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.  against the impugned order dated 29.1.2015  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (for short, ‘State Commission) in  FA No.984/2012.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that R-1/Complainant purchased multi-colour printer from Petitioner/OP-2 who was the authorized dealer of OP-1/Respondent No.2. R-3/OP-3 is the service provider for maintenance services. The printer was installed on 7.4.2008 and the warranty was for three months only. In August, 2009, Respondent-1/complainant experienced some problem with the printer. The complainant contacted the petitioner but came to know that the petitioner was no longer a dealer of OP-1.  Complainant then contacted OP-1 and he was told that OP-3  was the new service provider.  Though some agreement was entered between OP-3 and the complainant and OP-3 replaced some parts as well as their engineers visited and repaired. However, it again started giving trouble after some time, but, then the maintenance work was not taken up by OP-3.  Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barast ( in short ‘District Forum”), alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

3.      The complaint was resisted by different OPs on different grounds. After hearing the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 22.11.2012.

4.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.1.2015 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:

      “On the foregoing facts and submission we are unable to agree with the conclusion of  the District Forum  in the impugned judgment and order.

       In the light of the above discussion, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.

The Respondent No.1. OP No.1 and the Respondent No.2/OP No.2 are directed, jointly and /or severally , to pay to the Appellant/Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Appellant/Complainant.  The Respondent Nos.1&2 are also directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Appellant/complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue on the said amount till default.”

5.      Hence, the revision petition filed by OP-2/Petitioner.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-2 stated that he had successfully installed the printer and has served the printer till warranty period was over. Warranty period expired on 6.7.2008.  No separate agreement was entered with OP-2 by the complainant in respect of the maintenance of the printer and hence OP-2 had, in fact, no connection with R-1/complainant beyond  the date of expiry of warranty. If there was any manufacturing defect, then OP-1/R-2 would be responsible and not the OP-2/petitioner. The complaint has been filed in April, 2011 and hence, it was beyond limitation so far as OP-2/petitioner is concerned, because any cause of action qua OP-2 could have arisen only before 6.7.2008 which is not the case in the matter. Thus, the order of the State Commission holding OP-2/petitioner liable jointly and severally with OP-1 to pay compensation of Rs. 100,000/- is totally illegal and suffers from material irregularity.

8.      The learned counsel for R-3/OP-3 stated that no order has been passed against R-3 and therefore, OP-3 has nothing to say in the matter.

9.      Learned counsel for R-1/complainant  stated that OP-2/petitioner concealed the fact that its dealership had already been terminated on 31.3.2008 whereas the printer was purchased on 3.4.2008 and installed on 7. 4.2008. Had the OP-2/petitioner disclosed its cancellation of dealership, the complainant would have given a re-thought to the purchase of this printer from OP-2/petitioner and clearly the complainant would have understood that he will be facing the problem of spare parts.

10.     Learned counsel for R-2/OP-1 stated that offer of sale was made before 31.3.2008 as the booking amount of Rs.25,000/- was received on 4 .3.2008 when OP-2/petitioner was the dealer of OP-1. Hence, offer of sale was valid.  Hence, neither OP-1 nor OP-2 can be held liable in this case.  The complainant was having service agreement with OP-3 which was valid from 24.3.2010 to 24.3.2011 and thus, it is the OP-3 who should be responsible for any problem faced beyond the warranty period of the printer.

11.     I have carefully examined the material on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

12.   The State Commission has held OP-2/Petitioner and OP-1/R-2 jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.1 lakh within a period of 30 days, failing which interest @ 9% p.a shall be paid. The revision petition has been filed by only OP-2 and not by OP-1. Hence, it is clear that OP-1 accepts the order of the State Commission. So far as OP-2 is concerned, it is clear that even if he would have continued with the dealership of OP-1, its liability would have extended up to the period of warranty only unless OP-2 entered with some maintenance .service agreement with the complainant beyond the period of warranty which expired on 6.7.2008. But one thing is clear that due to cancellation of his dealership, he was not able to arrange for any spare parts when needed by the complainant.  Even after warranty period, this must have caused difficulty in operation of the printer which was purchased from the petitioner.  It is also clear that the dealership agreement between OP-2 and OP-1 was terminated on 31.3.2008 . The actual purchase is dated 3.4.2008 and the printer was installed on 7.4.2008 which is definitely after the termination of the dealership agreement.  The complainant must have been assured of good services and availability of spare parts, because he was purchasing the printer from an authorized dealer of the manufacturing company and he could have been rest assured for any kind of maintenance and supply of spare parts. By not disclosing the fact of termination of the dealership agreement, the OP-2 has clearly misled the complainant. This definitely is covered under the unfair trade practice. OP-1 is also responsible for not appointing any proper dealer immediately to support the maintenance of printers sold  by them in India and therefore, State Commission  has rightly held OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice. However, at the time when printer started giving trouble in August, 2009, the warranty period was over and there was no maintenance contract with OP-2/petitioner. Therefore, liability of petitioner/OP-2 could not be as high as that of R-2/OP-1. Hence I am of the view that liability of OP-2/petitioner in the award of the State Commission should be not more than 30% (Thirty Percent) only. With this observation, the revision petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.