The case of the complainant in short is that he runs a business of Ganji Printing Screen and suppliers of printing materials and on loan he purchased one HP – Ploter Mono – 50024 with HR –Printer – 054500 DTA10 as mentioned in the schedule at a consideration of Rs.79,500/- on 4.4.2011 by tax invoice no.ALCO/00263/1112 dated 4.4.2011 with a warranty of one year which was installed immediately after four days in his business place . The complainant depends upon this business which is his only source of income for his livelihood. It is alleged that the said machine developed certain defects in its functioning and accordingly the report was sent to the Op wherefrom technician Mr. Sadhan Das and subsequently another engineer Mr.Sanjay Das checked and examined the said machine. But inspite of that the machine has not come in a running condition. So , on several occasions the complainant requested the oP for its replacement. But no satisfactory response was given to the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for replacement
of the printing machine as scheduled in the petition in default to get refund its price with compensation.
The Ops 2 and 3 contested the case by filing WV challenging that the complainant purchased the printing machine for commercial purpose so he is not a consumer in terms of the provisions of Section 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Besides, it is challenged that the machine has no fault of its own, rather , it is due to improper voltage which has been established by the authorized engineer and technician while their inspection in the business place of the complainant and the complainant is not bother to adhere the advice given by them. Avoiding the advice , the complainant raised this incorrect allegation before the Forum in the way of filing petition of complaint against the OP. The complainant is well aware of the warranty , terms and conditions . Even so , he impleaded the service provider with an intention to get unjust enrichment by wrongful means. From the very beginning the complainant tried to get replacement of the printer by the strength of false allegation . In this connection, the oP no.3 claimed that he is not manufacturer of the said machine being utilized by the complainant with the help of improper electric voltage in his business place. Thus, this OP is not responsible
for replacement of the said machine i.e. Printer/Ploter or refund of the price thereof as prayed by the complainant. Challenging the plea of the complainant, the oP prays for dismissal of this case.
Op no.1 has not contested the case and as a result the proceeding ended exparte against him.
Upon the case above the following issues are framed for the purpose of effective decision in the matter.
ISSUES
Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act ?
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
If there is any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint ?
Whether the case suffers from want of jurisdiction ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
-5-
DECISION WITH REASONS ;
All the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and brevity of the case.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that this is the business for supply of printing materials whereupon the complainant maintains his family by earning his livelihood as self employment. For this purpose one HP 24 Ploter Mono -500 -24 was purchased on payment of Rs.79,500/- on 4.4.2011 with a warranty of one year and the same was installed in his business place at Serampur. Subsequently, the machine was found defective and the matter was reported to the OP who asked the complainant for change of spare parts upon due technical examination. Further, according to technical engineer it was detected problem of electricity voltage. Despite checking up the electricity line, the machine was not found free from any defect as alleged. Ultimately, the Ops were asked for replacement of the machine but no positive action has been taken by them. As a result, the complainant suffered huge amount of financial loss together with loan liability . Thus, it is crystal clear that the machine was
manufacturing defects and the OP should compensate the loss to the complainant as prayed for.
Ld. Advocate for the contesting OP no.3 challenged the plea of the complainant that the machine was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose specially for printing of civil construction and residential layouts thereof. So the complainant is not entitled to avail of the benefits as a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Moreover, none of the oPs has business or voluntarily resides within the jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum. Apart from that, the complainant availed of the service facility from the oP in its Kolkata Service centre. So, the case should be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Ld. Advocate further argued that the function of printing machine was affected due to insufficient voltage in the place of installation of the said machine. The technical persons admittedly on several occasions visited the place and inspected the machine . The actual intention of the complainant was for getting replacement of the machine on false plea. Moreover, the contesting OP is mere a
service provider having a limited scope and as such he is not liable to satisfy the prayers of the complainant as made by him in the petition of complaint.
We have carefully considered the entire case including the relevant documents . The prime contention is that non functioning of the printing machine in question . Admittedly, technical persons have duly checked the actual cause of such alleged non functioning of the said machine. It has been identified by the technical person that the machine suffers from “proper voltage” in the electricity line of the complainant enabling the machine to run in its proper manner. In this connection, the electricity line of the complainant is reported to have been checked by the complainant . Even thereafter, the alleged defect is reportedly not removed from the functioning of the said machine. Now question is that the machine suffers from improper voltage according to the expert opinion whereas there is no defect in the electricity line claimed by the complainant . Under the present circumstances, it is very much difficult for us to determine and hold whichever is correct in order to arrive at a just and effective conclusion in the dispute. Reasonably, to accept the plea of improper voltage should be the deciding factor since it is supported by expert opinion , though it is from the end
of the present contesting OP, in absence of any such neutral expert agency. It is curious enough to hold out considered opinion that as to why the complainant has not preferred to have legal evidence for production of a competent specialized technical expert in order to show his contention that the electricity line in his office for running the machine does not bear any voltage problem defeating or raising appropriate blow to the plea of the OP in the disputed matter of electricity voltage . But we do not find any attempt of taking such steps from the end of the complainant , nor we find any documentary evidence in support of correct electricity voltage line for the purpose of operating the machine in question.
Following the findings and observation as made hereinabove we do not find any cogent evidence in favour of the case of the complainant. Thus, the case should fail for want of cause of action.
All the issues are disposed of accordingly.
Hence ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
