Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/963/2021

Puneet Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hewlett Packard Computing and Printing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. GF, Global e Business Ops Pvt. L - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Ravindra Singh

26 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	963 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	20.12.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	26.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Puneet Gupta son of Dr.Raj Kumar Gupta, aged 49 years, resident of House No.659, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Hewlett Packard Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, GF, Global Business Ops Pvt. Ltd., GF, Global e Business Ops Pvt. Ltd., No.66/2, Ward No.83, Bagmane Tech-Park, 7^th Floor – A Wing “Embassy Prime” CV Raman Nagar 2450093, Bangalore Karnataka through its Managing Director/Partners.

        2^nd Address:-

HP Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited 5F, Salarpur GR Tech Park, Khatha No.69/3, Mahadevapura CMC 5 &( FL, Whitefield Road P.C. 560066 Bangalore Karnataka

        3^rd Address: -

HP Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, “Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., EC2 Campus, HP Avenue, Survey  No.39 (PART), Electronic City Phase-II, Hosur Road Bangalore 560 100 India PC 560100 Bangalore Karnataka

2]  M/s Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Banglore 560055, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director/Partners

3]  M/s Appario Retail Private Limited, Village Jamalpur, Gurgaon 122503, through its Managing Director/Partners     

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA        MEMBER

 

Argued by:-       Sh.Kshitiz Goel, Counsel of Complainant.

Sh.Tapish Gupta, Counsel of OP No.1 (Defence of OP No.1 struck off)

OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        In a nutshell, the complainant’s case is that the Printer (Model No.HP Laser Jet Pro MFP M226dw – manufactured by OP NO.1) purchased by him on 13.4.2021, through OP No.2 Portal, for an amount of Rs.29,999/- and sold by OP No.3, started giving problem from the very beginning. A complaint lodged on 25.4.2021 about the problem in the said printer was resolved by OPs by changing its one of the parts i.e. ADF Scanner (Ann.C-2).  However, on 30.9.2021, the same part of the printer i.e. ADF Scanner stopped functioning, thereby hampering the office work of the complainant.  As such, the complainant lodged complaint with the OPs with request to refund the cost of the printer, whereupon the OPs instead again changed the said part of the Printer on 3.10.2021, but did not acceded to the request of the complainant about refund of the cost of the printer.  It is claimed that due to supply of defective printer by the OPs the complainant and his office work suffered a lot.  The complainant also sent a legal notice to OPs in this regard on 2.11.2021 but to no avail.  Hence, preferred the present complaint.

 

2]       The defence of the Opposite Party No.1 was struck off vide order dated 27.10.2022 as the OP No.1 failed to file written reply within the stipulated period. 

         The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 7.7.2022.

 

3]       The Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]      Admittedly, the printer in question was repaired twice, free of cost, during 6 months of its purchase and it was ultimately replaced with new printer, free of cost, within one year period. 

 

6]       Though the free of cost repairs were timely made by the OPs, but the replacement of printer was made only after filing of present complaint, therefore, in our opinion, the demand of the complainant for compensation is justified and he deserves to be fairly compensated for the harassment suffered by him due to deficient act of OP No.1.

 

7]       Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed against OP No.1 with direction to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8]       The complaint qua remaining OPs stands dismissed. 

9]       This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26^th May, 2023                                                                                   Sd/-  

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER