BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 25^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP’s to replace printer with another quality printer as per the specification or alternative direction to OP’s to refund the entire amount of Rs.18,995/- with interest of 18% per annum, compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for mental agony, waste of time, unwanted expenses, and direction to pay Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

Complainant have purchased HP Laser MFP 138 fnw printer bearing No.CNB 1P686 QV and print No.42B91A (herein after referred as printer) on 21.10.2021 from OP No.3 for sum of Rs.18,995/- for the official/professional use of the complainant No.2. OP issued receipt dated 21.10.2021.  Complainant No.2 is advocate by profession, printer is one of the essential devise which is used for preparing court papers, legal notice, sale deed, property related documents etc on daily basis. Complainant submitted that the printer was purchased for official use of complainant No.2, OP No.1 clearly mentioned in its website that the said printer prints sheets up to 163 GSM all the plane, thick, thin, cotton, colour, pre-printed, legal, labels , gray cost, bun archive envelope.  The same was assured by OP No.1.  Initially complainant was using the printer only for the printing on 70-80 GSM, A4 and legal sheets.  From the month of May 2022, complainant No.2 stated using bond sheets (100GSM) and other documents of greater than (100GSM) to print legal notice and prepare documents respectively.  It was noticed that prints of bond sheets (100GSM) and other documents sheets greater than 100GSM are not bonding with sheets and the print would peel off/erase off the sheets by the gentle rub or even when the sheets were get on over the dockets, filing etc.  It cost lot of difficulty as the sheets printed loses, its contents and become illegible and the valuble/important details printed will be destroyed and the clients of the complainant No.2 was unsatisfied with the work. For the above said issue complainant No.2 forced to visit Xerox shops, Cyber centre to printout other documents. It caused lot of stress, agony and waste of time of complainants.  Complainant No.2 raised this complaint with OP No.1 on 12.06.2022 well within the warranty period. The complaint was registered vide No.5086785143 and OP No.2 was assigned to rectify the issue. The E-mail acknowledgement has issued on 12.06.2022 with regard to the registration of complaint.

3. The service executive of OP No.2 visited and inspected printer.  He replaced the fuser assembly at the first instance, the issue was not resolved.  He informed that the power supply board shall also be replaced and the same will be done.  OP delayed in attending it and informed that there was delay in supply of spare parts.  Service executive replace the power supply board on 06.08.2022. The issue has not been resolved even after replacement of the power supplying board.  Service Executive of OP No.2 has informed that nothing can be done for this printer to work fine as per specification and has issued on service, call report/endorsement date 06.08.2022. The issue is not solved even after replacement of parts.  The complainant No.2 contacted OP No.1 and requested to rectify the issue or replace the printer or to refund the amount, since the professional work of complainant No.2 is affecting.  OP No.1 and 2 not bothered to rectify the issue or replace the printer or refund the amount, on the ground that the complaint raised by the complainant has been closed and new complaint cannot be raised as warranty period has been expired on 23.07.2022.  Complainant stated in his complaint that OP has not closed the complaint with consent of complainant as the issue is not solved.  After repeated phone calls to OP No.1, it was assured that concerned team will take up this matter and that  they will call back with solution within 48 hours, complainant No.2 was repeatedly getting calls from OP No.1 which to check if the issue has been solved.  Till date complainant has received 4 to 5 phone calls from OP No.1 just to dodge this issue without any solution.

4. Complainant stated that he purchased printer from OP No.3 on 21.10.2021 which was having one year warranty period, expires on 21.10.2022 not on 23.07.2022.  The official website of OP No.1 demonstrates that warranty has commenced from 24.07.2021 and expired on 23.07.2022.  The print out of screenshot contains details of warranty period of website of OP No.1 is produced here with.  The toner cartridge of the printer is empty, it requires Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- to have new toner cartridge for which complainants are not in position to invest.  Complainant stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the printer, malpractice on manipulating the period of warranty and deficiency of services from OP.  It leads to mental agony, stress, waste of time, unwanted expenses to noble profession of advocacy to the Complainant No.2 shall be compensated.

5. The complainant caused legal notice on 13.09.2022 to OP No.1 and 2 calling upon them to rectify the defects in  the printer or to place the printer with another quality printer or refund the entire amount, rectify the warranty period and pay Rs.5,00,000/- compensation. OP No.1 and 2 neither represented nor complied the demand of complainant though legal notice duly served on them.  Complainants visited OP No.3 on 16.10.2022 to enquire about the issues. He was informed that he should send an E-mail to ‘indian.pop@hp.com’ to rectify the warranty period issue.  OP No.3 assured that the issues regarding the wrong entry of warranty period and print quality will be resolved.

6. Accordingly E-mail was sent to ‘indian.pop@hp.com’, the same was forwarded to OP No.3 on 17.10.2022.  Subsequently OP No.1 registered the case bearing No.5093-779154 at 18.10.2022.  Complainant No.2 was asked to share the invoice on 20.10.2022.  Complainant also stated that he received an E-mail from OP No.1 on 21.10.2022 that the case bearing No.5093-779154 is closed.  Further the wrongly entered warranty period remain unchanged. It clearly shows the malpractice followed by OP’s. Complainant with no option to seek replacement or refund of amount along with compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and for mental agony. Therefore the complainant approached this commission seeking direction to OP’s for replacement of printer or refund of Rs.18,995/- with interest of 18% per annum, Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation.

7. In view of issuance of notice, OP No.1 to 3 not appeared before this commission despite notices duly served on them. Hence OP No.1 to 3 placed Ex-parte.

8. After the stage of the appearance of OP, the case set down to adduce the affidavit evidence of a complainant.  Accordingly complainant adduced his evidence, reiterated as stated in his complaint.  In support on oral evidence, complainant has placed documentary evidence by filing 14 documents which are marked as Ex-P1 to P14.  In spite of several opportunities provided to complainant, complainant has not come forward to argue on behalf of complainant is taken as heard.  We perused the materials on record and proceeded to dispose the matter on merits.

9. The points that arise for our consideration are:-

i) Whether the complainant prove the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant entitled to get reliefs as prayed?

iii) What order?

10. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1) Point No.1:- IN the affirmative

2) Point No.2:- Partly affirmative

3) Point No.3:- See the final order

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:- Since these points are interconnected between each other, for the sake of arguments we would like to discuss and answer point No.1 & 2 together. Complainant purchased HP laser MFP 138 fnw printer bearing No.CNB1P686QU and product No.4ZB91A on 21.10.2021 from OP No.3 by paying Rs.18,995/- which is at Ex-P1. Complainant No.2 is an advocate by profession, running professional advocate office.  Printer is one of the essential devise for advocates to get day to day printouts like legal notice, court papers, sale deed, property related documents etc. Complainant stated that the OP has assured that the said printer supports sheets up to 163 GSM of plane, thick, thin, colour, pre-printed, labels, recycled, Card stock, Bond, Archive, envelope. Even the website of OP No.1 has disclosed the similar specifications with the printer which the complainant bought.  Initially complainant printed only on 70-80 GSM A4 & legal sheets. From May 2022 which means after 6 months of his purchase, complainant No.2 started using bond sheet (100 GSM) and other documents sheets of around 100 GSM to print legal notice and property documents, he found difficult in bonding with sheet of 100 GSM and more than 100 GSM.  The said print would peel off/ erase off sheets by gentle rub or even when the sheets were kept on over the other in-dockets, files etc.  Complainant alleged that it related into sheets printed loses its contents and become illegible and erase important details, print will be destroyed.  It caused the clients of Complainant No.2 were unsatisfied and few of his clients went back without assigning him the professional assignments.

11. The specifications/ technical details of printer has assured by OP No.1 and its website is hereby marked as EX-P2.  For above said difficulty, complainant NO.2 keep on visiting Xerox shops and cyber centre for his work done, made him stressful and caused mental agony and waste of time and losing his clients.  In view of difficulty with printer, complainant No.2 raised complaint with complainant No.1 and registered the complaint calling upon OP No.1 to rectify the defect in the printer which is at EX-P3.  The service executive of OP NO.2 visited and inspected the printer, subsequently replaced the fuser assembly, but the issue was not solved.  The said executive informed that power supply board is defective and will be replaced. Because of non-availability of spare parts executive replaced the power supply board on 06.08.2022 which is at EX-P4, it means he took 2 months to indentify the cause of defect that too the issue has not been resolved.  It shows, the printer has manufacturing defect, within the period of 7 months, the printer giving trouble and not rendered service as assured by OP’s. In spite of the complaint raised complaint with OP’s, complaint has not resolved as effectively.

12.  Printer has purchased on 21.10.2021 which carries 1 year of warranty as we all aware.  The same is disclosed in Ex-P2. It is bonafide responsibility of OP to attend the problems or replace the printer within the warranty period if it is not rectified as required.  With regard to that complainant caused legal notice dated 13.09.2022 to OP No.1 & 2 which were duly served on them as not replied to the legal notice which are marked at EX-P8 to P10.  On perusal of the E-mail sent to

12. On perusal of documents placed before this commission, the printer in question has manufacturing defect and the same has been brought to the notice of OP’s but not rectified, despite within the warranty period and also issue raised with regard to the warranty period, the date’s has varied from the actual date of warranty commencement and expiry. 

13. With all this, in our view complainant has proved by placing the documentary evidence before this commission on OP’s No.1 to 3 were absent and not placed any objections to the complaint and evidence to prove their case.  Hence evidences placed by complainant are unchallenged and he proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s by not rectifying the defective printer and proved unfair trade practice by manipulating the warranty period, refused to rectify the defect on the grounds that printer expired its warranty period, which is false. It shows the unfair trade practice of OP’s. By this the consumers who approaches OP’s have repairs or with any problem of product OP’s ignoring and manipulating the warranty period is unjust and unfair. In view of this they are liable to compensate not to the complainant, we can observe this kind of manipulation to public at large and commission to curb such unfair trade practice imposing punitive damages to OP’s towards consumer welfare fund.

14. For the deficiency of services and unfair trade practice of OP’s, complainant seeking direction to replace the printer with another quality printer or alternative direction to OP’s to refund the invoice amount of RS.18,995/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  In our considered view complainant has entitled to get replacement of printer with similar specification or refund of RS.18,995/- with 10% interest per annum from the date of purchase.

15. In the inconvenience caused to his professional assignments, considering the printer is important essential equipment for advocate’s office, OP’s caused deficiency of service even though the complainant No.2 brought the defect in the printer to OP’s immediately after 6 months of his usage.  By all this OP’s No.1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the inconvenience, stress and necessary expenditure incurred to the work done from others. Hence OP’s are liable to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.  For the foregoing reasons, we answered P1 in affirmative and P2 in partly affirmative.

15. Point No.3:- In view of our findings on the above points we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

i) Complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is partly allowed.  

ii) OP’s No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to replace HP laser MFP 138 fnw printer to the complainant within 30 days from this day, failing which OP’s shall refund sum of Rs.18,995/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of 1^st complaint bearing No. 5086758143 i.e, from 12.06.2022 till  realization. Complainant is directed to return the printer in question to OP No.1. 

iii) OP’s shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. OP’s are directed to pay the above Award amount within 30 days from this day, failing which OP’s shall pay 12% interest on Award amount.

iv) OP’s are further directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- to consumer welfare fund towards punitive damages under section 39(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 within 30 days from this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th day of APRIL, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;