Haryana

Ambala

CC/84/2021

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Techforce Infotech Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Mewa Ram Sounti

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :  84 of 2021.

                                                          Date of Institution           : 12.02.2021.

                                                          Date of decision    : 06.03.2023.

         

Raj Kumar son of Shri Bishna Ram, R/o House No.41, Sonia Colony, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/s Techforce Infotech Technology, SCo 101, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.-133001.
2. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. 214-218, Narain Manjil Bara Khamba Road, Canaught Place, Delhi-11001.       

                                                                              ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Shri Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.          

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the printer with a new one.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Canon MFP (HSN 84433970), amounting to Rs.3,400/- vide Invoice No.3312 dated 14.07.2020, from the OP No.1. The complainant approached the OP No.1 when the printer in question started giving problem after the purchase of few days.  The OP No.1 suggested the complainant to lodge a complaint through online and the complainant lodged the complaint on the toll free number. But no solution of the problem of printer was done. Thereafter, complainant again lodged the complaint on 02.12.2020 and 14.12.2020, then the employee of the company came to the complainant and get the printer set right. But taking some print the printer again got defected. The employee of the company who visited the complainant told the complainant the printer in question is out of stock and the company stopped the manufacturing of such printer. Therefore, the employee of the company further told the complainant that company neither repaired the printer nor changed this printer, the OPs have committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is only the seller and is not authorized for after sale service. After sales complaints and service/repair of the product is only handled/rectified by the complainant OP No.2 itself. The OP No.1 is not responsible or liable for any defect or complaint of the product. The model of the printer has not been discontinued by the company and is still available in the market. OP No.1 has never misbehaved with the complainant due to which he has suffered financial and mental loss. OP No.1 has not sold any wrong product to the complainant as same has been verified by the OP No.2 the company. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant made the complaint for the first time on 02.12.2020, which was duly attended by the ASC of the OP No.2 on the same day itself, when the technician inspected the printer and found that a non-genuine/refilled cartridge was being used inside the printer. Complainant was informed for the same however, the complainant failed to take any action and rather make another complaint on 14.12.2020. It is further stated that the complainant has voided his warranty by using a non-genuine/refilled cartridge. Moreover, this fact was informed to the complainant that consumables are not covered under warranty. The complaint of the complainant was duly attended to by the service engineer of the ASC of the OP No.2. It is further stated that since no documents have been annexed alongwith the complaint to support the said pleadings, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Also, there is no defect in the said printer and the alleged malfunction is solely due to refilling of the empty black cartridge by the complainant and the empty colour cartridge in the said Printer. The complainant was informed that the cartridge is not covered in the warranty being consumable item and the complainant has made baseless allegations against the OP No.2 which is completely contrary to the material on record.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.                 Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Saurabh Lamba son of Ashok Lamba authorized signatory M/s Techforce Infotech Technology as Annexure OP1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Gurjyot Sethi son of Shri Amrit Bir Singh working as a Legal Counsel for Canon India Private Limited, having its corporate office at 7^th Floor, Tower B, Building #5, DLF Epitome, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon 122002 as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.                 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                 Complainant has contended that on 14.07.2020, complainant purchased the printer in question from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.1. Few days after the purchase of the printer, started creating problem and it suffered from manufacturing defect due to which there was problem of printing the documents. Complainant requested to OPs to resolve his problem but despite several visited before the OPs, again the problem with the printer in question was not resolved.

8.                The learned counsel for the OP No.1 has submitted that OP No.1 is only the seller and is not authorized for after sale service. There is no specific allegation levelled against the OP No.1 thus he is not committed any deficiency in service.

9.                The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has submitted that the cartridge, which is a consumable cannot be replaced under warranty and such demand by the complainant is contrary to the warranty provision (s) which are applicable on the said printer wherein consumables such as cartridges are not covered under warranty and moreso cartridges being a consumable cannot be replaced under warranty and the complainant is required to purchase the same just like a customer needs to purchase petrol to run his/her automobile. The service engineer of the ASC of the OP No.2 in his remarks (updated in “problem and cause” section of the CSR) has clearly observed that the “colour cartidge empty and black cartridge refill, customer advised to purchase new cartridge, test printer working OK” these observations clearly indicates the reason for the said printer not printing was not due to any defect in the said printer but on account of the colour cartridge being empty and the complainant using refilled black cartridges. Therefore, there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

9.                From the above discussion, it may be stated here that there is no manufacturing defect in the printer in question. Thus onus to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the printer is upon the complainant but he failed to discharge the onus by leading cogent evidence. The complainant did not produce any expert evidence to either show the nature of defect or proof of manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to prove that the printer purchased by him suffered from any manufacturing defect. In this way, complainant has failed to prove his case. Thus we are of the view that there is no substance in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 06.02.2023.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)        (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                Member                President