Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

788/2009

K.Sekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

m/s. Helwett Package India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,& another - Opp.Party(s)

R. Saravanakumar

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 22.05.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.788/2009

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

Mr. K. Sekar,

S/o. V.N. Krishnan,

Chief Executive,

Ensyscon,

New No.14, Shanmuga Naicker Street,

K.K. Nagar West,

Chennai -600 078.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                            ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

Registered Office at:-

No.24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi,

Hosur Main Road,

Bangalore – 560 030.  

 

2. M/s. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

Jaypore Hall,

No.241, Peters Road,

Chennai – 600 086.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. R. Saravana Kumar &  

                                                             another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi &

                                                            another

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the existing Lazerjet printer with a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the cost incurred by the complainant for taking Colour Printouts, to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- collected from the complainant towards replacing the parts, to pay a sum of Rs.4,600/- towards transportation charges from the complainant’s office to the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party on numerous occasions and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and loss of business etc. with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a HP Lazerjet Col The 3000 series printer bearing serial No.CNKKL02213 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 11.05.2006. Further the complainant submits that right from the beginning, the said printer went out of order with display showing “10.92.00 cartridge not engaged” and was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party on 17.10.2006.  Thereafter also, the said defect continues from the very next month.  On 21.11.2006 after due service, the opposite party returned the printer with a report stating that “replaced the ETB and tested printer working fine”.   Thereafter also, the continuous several defects caused was rectified timely then and there.  On 22.10.2007, the 2^nd opposite party issued a quotation for replacing ETB Assembly for a sum of Rs. 14,210.86 knowing fully well that the ETB assembly was already replaced on 20.03.2008.  The display of the printer showing the routine defects for which, the opposite party charged a sum of Rs.1,157.82 towards replacing “Side Lever Lock”.   The printer had continuous defects and the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  This act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1  & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the complainant had purchased a HP Lazerjet printer 3000 series expiring on 28.04.2007.  Till then, all the defects and repairs were rectified by the opposite parties by way of replacing ETB assembling etc.  After the warranty, when the complainant brought the printer for rectification of defects and repairs, the opposite parties claimed the expenses towards spare parts and labour.   Further the opposite parties state that the printer is ready for delivery after due rectification of defects.  Further the opposite parties state that the staffs repeatedly contacted the complainant to collect the printer but the complainant has not come forward to collect the printer.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     The complainant after filing the complaint has not turned up to file any proof affidavit to prove the contents in the complaint.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the printer laser jet with a new one as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the cost price of the printer alternatively as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainant entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.16,000/- collected towards spare parts and a sum of Rs.4,600/- expended towards transportation with a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony and cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant after filing the complaint has not turned up to file any proof affidavit to prove the contents in the complaint.  The complainant also has not turned up to mark the documents filed along with the complaint.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit to prove contentions raised in the written version.  Heard the opposite parties’ Counsel also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of the opposite party,  written  arguments  etc.     The complainant  purchased a HP Lazerjet

3000 series printer bearing serial No.CNKKL02213 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 11.05.2006 is admitted.  Further the complainant pleaded that right from the beginning, the said printer went out of order with display showing “10.92.00 cartridge not engaged” and was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party on 17.10.2006.  Thereafter also, the said defect continues from the very next month.  On 21.11.2006 after due service, the opposite party returned the printer with a report stating that “replaced the ETB and tested printer working fine”.   Thereafter also, the continuous several defects caused was rectified timely then and there.  On 22.10.2007, the 2^nd opposite party issued a quotation for replacing ETB Assembly for a sum of Rs. 14,210.86 knowing fully well that the ETB assembly was already replaced on 20.03.2008.  The display of the printer showing the routine defects for which, the opposite party charged a sum of Rs.1,157.82 towards replacing “Side Lever Lock”.  Since the printer had continuous defects, the complainant was constrained to file this case for replacement alternatively, refund the cost of the printer with the expenditure already incurred.   But the complainant failed and neglected to file any proof affidavit to prove the said contents in the complaint.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the complainant had purchased a HP Lazerjet printer 3000 series expiring on 28.04.2007.  Till then, all the defects and repairs were rectified by the opposite party by way of replacing ETB assembling etc.  After the warranty, when the complainant brought the printer for rectification of defects and repairs, the opposite parties claimed the expenses towards spare parts and labour.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is apparently clear that from the very inception of purchase, the printer having several defects and was rectified repeatedly and continuously.   Hence the lapse of warranty never arise.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the printer is ready for delivery after due rectification of defects.  But the complainant has not turned up to take delivery of the same proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  Proof Affidavit not filed

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT