DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                C.C. CASE NO. _310_ OF ___2014_

DATE OF FILING : 16.7.2014                        DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 27.07.2017

Present                      :   President       :  

                                        Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad  &  Subrata Sarker                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :    Nurul Islam Khan, C/o Musa Faruk of 3/C, Shamsul Huda Road, P.S Karaya, Kolkata- 700 017.  

-VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                   :     M/s R.M.S Computers, through its Manager, having its office at 5/8, Podder Nagar-I, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata -68.

______________________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Jhunu  Prasad, Lady  Member

            Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the complainant, contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the complainant by the OP.

            In epitome, the case stated in the complaint, is that the complainant has purchased a cannon printer from Cannon Image Square,being model No.E510, SL no.LRNA01790 on payment of Rs.5,510/-.

            After few days of the purchase of the said printer, it started various problem and not worked properly. Immediately the complainant contacted with the Cannon Image Square and the said Cannon Image Square advised the complainant to contact with the O.P’s service provider.

            Thereafter the complainant contacted with the O.P’s service provider to solve the problem of the said printer, but the problem was not solved completely. More than 15 times the O.P service provider tried to repair the said printer, but they failed. Having no other way the O.P took the machine with them.

            Thereafter the complainant informed the customer support regarding the defective printer, but no reply has yet been given by them and the said defective printer is still lying with the O.P service provider.

            For that reason the petitioner suffering from his day to day work. Due to latches on the part of the OP. the petitioner suffered loss and mental agony.

            That’s why the complainant filed this instant complaint for getting relief as prayed for.

            Despite service of notice to the O.P ,the O.P appeared on 5.11.2014 before the Forum to contest the case by way of filing written version, but thereafter the O.P did not turn up.

            Resisting the complaint, the O.P filed written version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint and stating, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, the case is not maintainable and is barred by limitation.

            The case, as a whole, stated by the O.P, in crisp, is that the complainant lodged one complain regarding the condition of the said defective printer to the manufacturer as well as service centre. Accordingly the service centre repaired and handed over the same in OK condition to the complainant. The O.P also stated that the said printer was tested and kept it for a long time, but it found that there was no such defect in question of any existence of any manufacturing and/ or inherent defect and the allegation of the complainant is not true.

            Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                         Points for Determination :-

1.Whether the complainant is a consumer ?

2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.?

3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

                          Decision with Reasons:-

            At the time of argument the complainant filed affidavit – in - chief, BNA and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their contention. But the O.P did not file Affidavit-In-Chief and BNA.

            All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of argument and brevity.

            In coming into conclusion regarding the present dispute, we have gone through the complaint and written version  and also critically appreciated the material document on record and we have gathered that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the O.P and facts remains that the complainant for purchasing one printer, undisputedly paid a sum of Rs.5,510/-.

            Admittedly, after purchasing of the said printer it was found various problem. It is also admitted that after getting complaint lodged by the complainant, the O.P took the said defective printer for repair but the same is still lying in the custody of the O.P for long time for observation.

            Strikingly, it is found from the record that in spite of several request by the complainant the O.P deliberately ignored to repair the same.

Being a reputed company, the O.P should have solved the problem of the said defective printer, but the O.P deliberately ignored to do the same rather the O.P failed to repair the same.

            In light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P has committed deficiency in service in its part under the per view of section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act 1986.

             Although the complainant used the said printer more than two years, so the complainant should not be entitle to get new printer instead of old printer.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully proved his case partly and is entitled to get relief and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

            In short, the complainant deserves success.

Hence,

                        It is

                                                ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

That the O.P is directed to repair the said defective printer with OK condition with full satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

That the O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and  Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order.

In the event of non compliance of any portion of the executable order by the O.P within the above specified period, the O.P shall have to pay a sum of Rs.50/- as punitive damages per day from the date of this order till its realization, which  shall be deposited by the O.P in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
 

            Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

Member                                                        Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                        Member

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

That the O.P is directed to repair the said defective printer with OK condition with full satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

That the O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and  Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order.

In the event of non compliance of any portion of the executable order by the O.P within the above specified period, the O.P shall have to pay a sum of Rs.50/- as punitive damages per day from the date of this order till its realization, which  shall be deposited by the O.P in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
 

            Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

Member                                                        Member