Per Hon’ble Shri. Mohan Patankar, Member

                                     JUDGMENT

                                Dated 19^thJune 2014

                The present complaint is filed by the Complainant against Trader of Computer Printer. Both are resident of Pune. Complainant alleges deficiency in service at the hands of Opponent. Brief facts stated by complainant are as follows-

[1]            On 16/7/2010 Complainant has purchased new Samsung Printer, Model No.4300 and serial number 1316A for consideration of Rs.8,000/- from the Opponent. Complainant experienced that the Printer is faulty, hence, he produced the same for repairs from Opponent. As the fault was not rectified satisfactorily, he got it repaired from some outsider as he was in need of this device regularly. On 25/11/2011 complainant again submitted the Printer to the Opponent for repairs. Nothing is done and same is lying with the Opponent. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint before this Forum u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant has suffered mental agony, economic losses, hence he claims that Opponent is liable to pay basic cost of the printer, compensation for mental harassment and cost of the complaint as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

[2]            Opponent has filed written statement and resisted the claim of complainant. Opponent has denied the allegations made by the complainant. According to the Opponent said printer was handed over to them by the complainant only on 25/11/2011. It was given after expiry of warranty period. Opponent accepted it for testing and cleaning. Opponent has further contended that the said printer is handled by some outsider repairer. Opponent has denied the charges made on him by letter sent on 14/6/2013 to the complainant. It is contended that, the Opponent’s business is only to the extent on selling part; for repairs service centre is provided. Hence, complainant can get it repaired from the Service Centre of the Manufacturing Company.

[3]            After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing the argument dated 3/6/2014, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Reasons-

Point Nos. 1 to 3-

[4]            Complainant himself placed on record only single Repair Order dated 25/11/2011. It is vaguely alleged that, complainant has subjected the printer 6-8 times for repairs to the Opponent, prior to 25/11/2011. In order to substantiate the allegations regarding repairs for several times within the warranty period, no documentary evidence such as job card or receipt, is placed on record by the complainant. The exact nature of fault of the goods is also not placed on record. Complainant has failed to produce expert evidence on record. From the Repair Order dated 25/11/2011 it reveals that complainant has sent the printer for repairs only on 25/11/2011 and that too after expiry of warranty period.   In the complaint itself, complainant has admitted the fact that he had sent the printer for repairs to the outsider. Thus, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or lapses on the part of Opponent, and hence, complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed. Hence, Forum answers the points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. As per peculiar circumstances there is no order as to costs.
3. Complainant is directed to collect the Printer from the Opponent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members. Else those will be destroyed.

Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 19/06/2014