PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1)This is the complaint regarding defective printer being used by the Complainant and purchased by his cousin in USA. The facts of the complaint as stated by the Complainant are that he purchased a printer HP Model No.H.P.C.YCP2025 having Sr.No.CND02991 bearing produce Model No.CB495A manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 having worldwide warranty. It was registered on line for warranty with Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized service agent of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. Opposite Party No.4 & 5 are the Mumbai & Bengaluru office of the Opposite Party No.1.
2)It is further stated by the Complainant that the above said printer was purchased for Rs.75,000/- through his cousin Mr. Shezad Siddique. However, the said printer was found defective and was not working. Therefore, the Complainant lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.3 on telephone. The complaint of the Complainant was registered vide Complaint No.4606415895 on 11/11/09. The representative of Opposite Party No.3 attended the complaint and informed that certain parts of the printer i.e. LVPS was required to be replaced and he would replace the same after receiving the same from Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5. But thereafter there is no response from Opposite Party No.3. therefore, the Complainant vide his letter dtd.30/11/09 addressed to Opposite Party NO.2 & 3 brought the above facts to the notice of these Opposite Parties and further requested them to replace the printer.
3)The Complainant has further stated that the Complainant’s Advocate also sent a letter to Opposite Party NO.1, 2 & 5 requesting them to rectify the defects in the said printer. However, the Opposite Parties have not rectified the defects. Because of the defective printer, the Complainant has suffered loss & damages & he had to undergo mental agony for which the Complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.11,08,500/-, Rs.75,000/- with interest towards the cost of printer and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation.
4)The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents –
i) Service & installation call report dtd.17/11/09 by one Ajay Bokfode of Dixit Infotech Service Pvt. Ltd.
ii) Letter dtd.30/11/09, letter dtd.22/12/09.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties.Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 appeared through their advocate. Inspite of service of notice of the complaint on Opposite Party No.3, it did not appear before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte order was passed against op oNo.3. Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 filed their joint written statement wherein they have specifically denied that the printer CYCP 2025 Sr. No.CNDSDO 2991, Product Model CB495A was purchased form Opposite Party No.1. However, the Opposite Parties have admitted that a complaint was made by the Complainant vide complaint No.4606415895 on 11/11/09 with Opposite Party No.3. It is also admitted that Opposite Party No.3 is the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. It is also admitted that the representative of Opposite Party No.3 had informed the Complainant that certain part of the printer would be replaced in a day or two. Nevertheless, the said printer was brought to New York and more time was required to make the part available in New York.
5) It was also added by the Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 that the Complainant was guided to approach the authorized service centre. The Opposite Parties have stated that the printer is not defective. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 and get the printer repaired as per warranty terms. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief. Finally the Opposite Parties have prayed that this complaint be dismissed with cost.
6) Thereafter the Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence wherein he has reiterated the facts and prayers mentioned in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 also filed their affidavit of evidence wherein they reiterated the facts and points mentioned in their written statement.
7) Both the parties did not file their written argument hence, we heard the Ld.Advocate of both the parties. Perused the papers submitted by them and our findings are as follows.
8) The Complainant has alleged that his cousin had purchased the printer in question in USA for Rs.75,000/- for the Complainant but the Complainant has not produced any purchase document in this behalf. The Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 have denied the fact above fact that the Complainant’s cousin had purchased the said printer in USA for Rs.75,000/-. However, the Opposite Parties (1, 2, 4 & 5) have admitted that the Complainant had complained about the printer on 11/11/09 and it was attended by the Opposite Party No.3’s representative. It is also admitted that Opposite Party No.3 is their authorized service centre. It is also clear from the document prepared by the representative of the Opposite Party No.3 that, on 17/11/09, the representative attended the complaint of the Complainant as per this document the issue is no power and what was required to resolve the problem is to order LVPS from Opposite Parties.
9) Thus, from these above admitted facts it is clear that though the Opposite Parties (1, 2, 4 & 5) have denied the purchase of the disputed printer from them, they did not deny the manufacturing of the said printer and it was under the international warranty. When the disputed printer was under warranty, their service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3 attended the complaint and promised in writing vide serviced installation call report dtd.17/11/09 that “We will order LVPS from h.p. But they did not comply with this promise and did not take steps to correct the defect or order the LVPS as promised by Opposite Party No.3 representative. This collectively indicates that the Complainant being the user of the printer is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
10) Opposite Party No.1, 2, 4 & 5 also admitted in their written statement that the said printer was brought to New York and more time was required to make the parts available in New York. Thereafter nothing was done by Opposite Parties. Thus, from all these admissions, it is very much clear that the printer in dispute was manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. It was under warranty and it was not in working condition. The service centre of the Opposite Party No.3, as an agent of Opposite Party No.1 promised the Complainant to order for LVPS but no steps were taken by all the Opposite Parties to ensure that the disputed printer is in working condition. Therefore, it is the liability of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to ensure that the printer works normally without any defects. The Opposite Party (1 & 3) have failed in providing service to ensure the printer is working condition and thus, there is a deficiency in service on their part.
11) However, the Complainant has arbitrarily prayed for the total compensation of Rs.11,08,500/- which is not only exorbitant but without any justification. It is on record that the Complainant had made a complaint on 11/11/09. Since that time Opposite Parties did not take steps to correct the lacuna. Therefore, the Complainant must have suffered mental agony and he is entitled for some compensation for the same. Therefore, in our candid opinion Opposite Party No.1 & 3 are jointly and/or severally liable for the deficiency mentioned in para 10 above. Hence, we pass the order as below –
O R D E R
a.Complaint No.159/2010 is partly allowed.
b.Opposite Party No.1 & 3 are directed to take necessary steps to remove the lacuna from the printer in question and make it in working condition.
c.Opposite Party No.1 & 3 are directed to pay to the Complainant jointly/and/or severally a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony suffered by the Complainant.
d. Opposite Party No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay to the Complainant jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only) towards the cost of this complaint.
e. Opposite Party No.1 & 3 are directed to comply with the above order jointly and/or severally within 30 days
from the receipt of this order.
f.Complaint against Opposite Party No.2, 4 & 5 is dismissed as there is nothing against them.
g.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
