BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 234 of 2021
Date of Institution : 10.03.2021
Date of Decision : 02.12.2022
Mohan Parkash Gupta s/o Sh. Puran Chand, Old Dharamshalla Street, Narwana Distt. Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
M/s Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, 601-604, Ashoka Bhawan, 6th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi-93.
……Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajnish Garg, Adv. counsel for complainant.
OP exparte vide order dated 13.10.2021.
ORDER:
Per Sh. G.D. Goyal, Member
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on dated 17.06.2016, complainant purchased one Brother Printer T-300 for a sum of Rs.9800/- from opposite party. Unfortunately, the printer stopped working on 10.06.2019 and regarding this, the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.1906002329 with the opposite party. Thereafter, the mechanic of the Opposite party visited the complainant on 12.06.2019 and charged Rs.747/- for getting it repaired despite the fact that he was incompetent to repair the same because when he did not find any fault in the printer, he only advised the complainant to arrange new pack of ink to be purchased from Karnal. On this, the complainant arranged the ink by spending a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, the mechanic again visited the complainant on 01.07.2019 but he failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant again lodged complaint No.1907004752 with the OP and further sent the printer in question to the Op through courier on 11.07.2019 after paying Rs.400/- vide receipt No.D52612479 of DTDC Express Limited (Courier Company) for doing the needful. Thereafter, the complainant kept on making requests to the Op to return the printer after getting it repaired but every time, the OP instead of sending the printer asked the complainant to lift the printer from its workshop from Delhi. Feeling aggrieved with the acts of the Op, the complainant even requested the Op to send the printer through courier but the OP did not send the same and further demanded Rs.1500/- as courier charges to be borne by the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice to the Op but it also fell on deaf ears. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In pursuance to notice dated 28.07.2021 issued to the OP by this Commission through registered post, neither the OP nor his counsel or any representative appeared before this Commission. After expiry of mandatory period of 30 days, it was presumed that service has been effected upon the Op but since none has appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.10.2021.
3. In order to prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and evaluated the record placed on file very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the printer purchased from the Op vide annexure C-2 stopped working, therefore, on his complaint, the mechanic of the Op visited the complainant but when he failed to redress his grievance, the printer in question was sent to the Op through courier vide Annexure C-5. Learned counsel further urged that the OP neither redressed his grievance nor returned the printer in question despite several requests made by him.
6. After going through complaint as well as evidence placed on the file, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal. It is established on the case file that the complainant had purchased the printer in question from the Op and it went out of order and in order to get it repaired the complainant had sent the same to the Op at Delhi vide courier receipt Annexure C-5. The complainant in his evidence has also placed service call report dated 01.07.2019 wherein it has been mentioned that the printer in question is now working after closing the call qua the printer in question. The printer in question was purchased in the year 2016 and got out of order in the year 2019 and the same was sent to the Op on 11.07.2019 through courier but the complainant has failed to prove on the case file, (i) that who had asked him to send the printer in question to the Op through courier (ii) that the printer alleged to be sent through courier at Delhi has been received by OP (iii) that Op is demanding Rs.1500/- as courier charges for sending the same to the complainant. Further, it is not disputed that the Op had not provided any services qua the repairing of the printer in question to the complainant. Still the printer is alleged to be lying with the Op and the complainant has not led any evidence that he had paid the courier charges to the OP for sending it back to the complainant, so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is worthwhile to mention here that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are benevolent in nature but it does not allow anyone to take undue advantage of the same. In the present case, it appears that the complainant wants to get the courier charges waived off under the garb of this complaint. Though in the present case, the OP has not appeared before this Commission and also not joined the proceedings but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs without taking the benefit of other party. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP.
7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we dismiss the present complaint. There is no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned after due compliance.
