BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 94 of 2013
Date of Institution : 5.4.2013
Date of Decision : 29.7.2016
Jagatpal, aged about 36 years son of Sh.Nathu Ram, r/o village Jandwala, tehsil and district Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Chawla Digital & Photo Album, near Amar Tyre, Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa through its prop.
- H.P.Care Centre, Ganesh Complex, shop no.1, Hisar through its Manager/Incharge, shop no.35-36, Basement Red Square Market, Hisar.
- Halwert Packard (H.P.) Customer Care Executive, Halwert Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur, main road, Audogodi, Banglore-5600030, through its Manager.
- Jina Computers, Distributor of Halwert Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., shop no.77, New Mandi, Sirsa through its Prop./authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……. MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.M.Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjay Garg, Advocate for Opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh.Ajay Bansal, Advocate for Opposite party no.3.
Sh.Pankaj Singal, Advocate for Opposite party no.4.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one brand new HP 1000 Inkjet Printer bearing C.No.15625 KQR Model No. HP Deskjet 1000 Printer J-110 Series from op no.1 on 12.7.2012 for Rs.1700/- vide cash memo no.149 dt. 12.7.2012. As alleged, one year warranty was granted by the seller in all respect. Now, grievances of the complainant are that after two days, printer stopped working and on the asking of op no.1, complainant approached to op no.2 for necessary repair and service but op no.2 flatly refused to entertain the complaint. Upon this, op no.1 assured the complainant to remove the defect and asked him to collect the printer after 15 days. But, op no.1 also failed to get the needful and clearly refused to accede the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops no.1,3 and 4 appeared and contested the case by filing their written versions, whereas op no.2 proceeded against exparte. As per the version of op no.1, he did not give any warranty. It is further replied that op no.1 is a small shop-keeper and purchased the printer from op no.4 in sealed and packed condition and in the same position he sold the printer to the complainant and op no.4 is an authorized dealer of the manufacturing company. Op no.1 also denied the remaining allegations of the complaint. As per the version of op no.3, op no.1 is not authorized dealer or sub dealer of the company and as such, they are not liable to the warranty and guarantee extended by o no.1, if any. It is further replied that product manufactured by op no.3 pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production and the products are approved by the authorities empowered to certify the IT products. It is replied by op no.4 that they sold the printer to op no.1 and as such complainant is not their consumer. It is further replied that all warranty claims are subject to the terms laid down by the manufacturer.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced affidavit Ex.C1; photocopy of bill Ex.C2; copy of legal notice Ex.C3, Ex.C4 and postal receipt Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, whereas, Ops no.1,3 and 4 filed their affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and Ex.RW1/A in order to support their version.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. As per the complainant’s version, printer could not be repaired and defect therein cannot be removed and he is entitled to get replacement of the defective printer with new one. Except the affidavit of the complainant, there is no document on the file to prove the allegations of the complainant that printer has a defect which is not repairable. There is no expert opinion in this regard on the record, which is mandatory requirement as provided under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, we are of the considered view that complainant failed to establish the allegations of manufacturing defect in the printer and his complaint is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
