Order dictated by:
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Jaspal Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased HP Printer GT 5810 vide bill No. 570 dated 11.7.2016 from the opposite parties for Rs. 12900/- minus Rs. 400/- Rs. 12500/-. Immediately after the purchase of the printer, it became out of order and the complainant called the mechanic of opposite party No.2. The mechanic repaired the printer and it became functional in the month of August 2016. After that printer again became defective in the month of November and it again got repaired by the opposite party. In the month of December 2016 the complainant made report at service centre and the mechanic took the same from the complainant on 3.1.2017 with the assurance that the same will be repaired and the expenses for its repair will be from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/-. The opposite party No.2 called the complainant to take the printer and demanded Rs. 2500/- as repair expenses by stating that the parts have been filed. When the complainant demanded the old parts, opposite party stated that they have sent the same to the company. The act of demanding the repair charges despite having under warranty/guarantee period, amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to handover the printer without charging any amount of Rs. 2500/- or in the alternative to replace the same with new one or refund the price of the printer i.e. Rs. 12500/-;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that the replying opposite party sold one HP Printer GT 5810 to the complainant vide Invoice No. 570 dated 11.7.2016 for Rs. 12900/-. The replying opposite party is only a sales point for HP products and is a dealer for retaining HP products subject to terms and conditions . Attending to the after sales service is the sole responsibility of opposite party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not opt to put in appearance, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of job sheet Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Dinesh Kumar, Manager of opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Varinder Singh, Partner Ex.OP1/1, copy of bill Ex.OP1/2 , copy of dealership certificate Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. We have heard the complainant as well as representative on behalf of opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. There is no dispute that the complainant purchased printer in dispute on 11.7.2016 from opposite party No.1 against invoice /bill No. 570, copy whereof is Ex.C-3/Ex.OP1/2 on record. The case of the complainant that the said printer became out of order soon after its purchase in the month of August 2016 and the same was got repaired from opposite party No.2. It was further the case of the complainant that the said printer again became non functional in the month of November and it again got repaired from opposite party No.2. However, complainant has not placed on record any evidence to prove the abovesaid averments. But, however it is in evidence that the printer again became defective in the month of December 2016 and in this regard complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C-2. The case of the complainant that the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs. 2500/- for the repair of the printer on the pretext of changing some parts though the same was within its guarantee period at that time. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and demanded the old parts to which the opposite party No.2 denied on the pretext that they have sent the old parts to the company and rather demanded repair charges to the tune of Rs. 2500/- despite the printer having been under guarantee period and failed to deliver the printer to the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties No.2 & 3, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite parties impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite parties No.2 & 3 had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. So the very fact that opposite party No.2 has been demanding the repair charges despite the product having been under guarantee period . It is proved on record that opposite parties No.2 & 3 are deficient in service and the complainant is entitled for the free repair of the printer in dispute to his satisfaction . As the opposite party No.1 has only sold the printer to the complainant and complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1 for the repair of the printer as such no complaint is made out against opposite party No.1.
8. Consequently, we direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to make the printer of the complainant functional free of costs & handover the same to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order . In case the printer in question is found irreparable, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 will replace the printer with new one of same make and model. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant . The complaint stands allowed accordingly. However, complaint against opposite party No.1 stands dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 17.8.2017
