DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 342 of 23.12.2008 <br /> Decided on : 21.4.2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Narinder Singh, Dealer Nobel Informatique, Behind Bahia Fort, Bahia Fort Road, District bthinda-151 001.<br /> 2. The H.P. Authorised Service Centre, Hatha-Niwaz Mohambad, Street No. 2, Bathinda-151 001. <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Complainant in person<br /> For the opposite parties : Exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act' ). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant may be described as under :-<br /> That he purchased one HP Printer, Model 2120 from opposite party No. 1 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 vide bill No. 848 dat12.6.2008 in the sum of Rs. 3,850/- alongwith UPS (Goova Intel) in the sum of Rs. 1,550/-. On package being opened, he found that C.D and information brochure were of model F2100, whereas he had purchased HP Printer of model 2120. However, they were installed by a representative of opposite party No. 1 to whom the complainant paid Rs. 400/- as his fees, but due to mismatching and virus in C.D supplied by opposite party No.1 alongwith the Printer, his Computer was damaged and he suffered financial loss. Because of damage caused to his Computer, he lost goodwill and loss of income @ 400/- per day. At the end, he has sought a sum of Rs.90,000/- in all from the opposite parties on account of refund of amount paid for purchase of Printer, cost of his computer, loss of goodwill and business and costs of filing of instant complaint alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party No. 1 filed written version resisting the complaint by taking legal objections; that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complaint is not maintainable and being false and frivolous and complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. On merits, it is admitted that one HP Printer Model 2120 with UPS was sold to the complainant vide bill dated 12.6.2008, but rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> 3. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written version denying the allegations made by the complainant in its entirety and has made a prayer for missal of the complaint with costs. However, both them were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 13.3.2009 and 27.3.2009.<br /> 4. In exparte evidence, complainant filed his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.13, affidavit Ex.C.14 of Sh. Gurtej Singh and also tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.15 to Ex.C.24 before he closed his evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard the complainant in person as he is not represented by any counsel and have gone through the oral and documentary evidence produced on record carefully. <br /> 6. Admittedly, complainant purchased one HP Printer, model 2120 in the sum of Rs. 3,850/- alongwith UPS (Goova Intel) worth Rs. 1,550/- vide bill dated 12.6.2008 Ex.C.2 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 2 in his written version has not specifically denied that Printer purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 was not manufactured by it. The complainant has not alleged that there was any manufacturing defect in the Printer supplied to him by opposite party No. 1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 or that he is in any manner party to unfair trade practice adopted by opposite party No.1 at the time of sale. In the given situation, no liability can be fastened upon the manufacturer i.e. Opposite party No. 2 for any loss suffered by the complainant. However, the contents of affidavit of the complainant regarding unfair trade practice adopted by opposite party No. 1 has gone uncontroverted as no evidence to the contrary has been brought on record by opposite party No. 1 before he was proceeded against exparte. As such, there is no reason to discard the version of the complainant to that extent. He has also filed affidavit of Sh. Gurtej Singh to the effect that his business suffered adversely due to damage caused to his personal computer because of supply of defective software forming part of Printer purchased by him, but contents thereof are not corroborated by any other evidence oral or documentary. He has not examined any customer or student under him. He has not brought on record any expert evidence to establish that his computer was even damaged. As such, we are unable to accept his plea that damage was caused to his computer. Moreover, this Forum has to compensate the person aggrieved, who filed the complaint in the Consumer Fora for defect in the goods purchased by him and not for remote damages suffered by him in his business or otherwise. The plea of complainant regarding adoption of unfair trade practice by opposite party No. 1 in sale of Printer of different description than sold in purchase invoice cannot be discarded especially when opposite parties have not put up courage to contest the complaint till its logic end. <br /> 7. In the light of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.2 and partly accept the same against opposite party No. 1 and direct him to refund a sum of Rs. 3,850/- being the price of Printer sold to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 400/- paid by him to his representative for installation thereof alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of sale i.12.6.2008 till actual payment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order provided he deposits the Printer and its C.D The opposite party No. 1 is also burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of costs of filing of complaint within the period stipulated above.<br /> 8. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules on the subject.<br /> 9. File be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)<br /> 21.4.2009 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member