ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Santappan, has filed this complaint before the Forum on 12.11.08 against the opposite parties 1st and 2nd alleging deficiency in service. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased from the 2nd opposite party, a HP Colour Printer LJ 2605 (Serial No, (2) NH of 78No3R – product No: (IP)Q7824 case Id. 2600513663) on 03.04.2008 by Invoice No. 4151 for a sum of Rs. 20,700/- (Rupees Twenty thousand and seven hundred only). The opposite party is its manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is one of the retailer of the said product. It is stated that from the very beginning the set became defective by way of some sort of black dots appeared on the printouts. Within a week, the set shows another complaint of USB not detecting. Immediately he contacted the first opposite party. They sent a service personnel, who noticed that the board of machine was damaged and some error regarding the position of a fan fixed inside the machine. So the service personnel could not rectify the defect. So as per the complaint the first opposite party sent to him another machine of the same model. But he could notice that the replacement machine was a used one and refurbished one. He contacted the first opposite party and informed the matter. A representative of the first opposite party had brought the replacement machine directly to him. But the second set was also an old and Refurbished one. So he contacted the first opposite party and requested to give back the money, after taking the three sets. On the basis of the assurance of the first opposite party, he had allowed them to take back the replacement machines, provided to him. But so far he had not obtained any positive relief from the opposite parties, in changing the machine or getting back the price of the set. Hence this complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties for getting back a defect free new machine or getting the price of the machines. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party absent. Considering their absence, they were set exparte by this from on 03.02.09. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 3. In the version, the 1st opposite party has stated that their concern is a Company in corporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and has several business, including manufacturing of personnel Computers, Laptops, Amities etc, and they supplies its product for sale through wholesales and that they have no privity of contacts with retailers and have no control over terms. It is further stated that the purchase of the said set by the complainant may be true. It is further stated that their attempt to supply a new set was refused by the complainant. It is stated that they are ready to replace /refund the cost of the printer as claiming by the complainant, if he is releasing the two printers which were provide to him subsequently. 4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for considerations. 1. Whether there is any deficiently in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Other relief including compensation and costs? 5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in the support of her case and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 to A3 – marked. Ext. A1 is the Invoice dtd. 03.04.2008, issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party at the time of the purchase of the set for a sum of Rs. 20,700/- (Rupees Twenty thousand and seven hundred only). It was signed by the second opposite party and sealed – Ext. A2 is the Advocate notice dtd. 02.09.2008, sent by the complainant counsel to the opposite parties in connection with the said purchase and other subsequent matters. Ext. A3 is the Postal Receipts, in connection with the said Advocate notice. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that they have no oral evidences. 7. On a careful readings of the entire matter of this case and after the perusal of the documents given by the complainant in evidence it can be seen that as per the Ext. A1 document the complainant had purchased the above set from the second opposite party dealer, for a sum of Rs. 20,700/- (Rupees Twenty thousand and seven hundred only). After accepting the full sale amount from the complainant, the second opposite party delivered the set to the complainant. The Invoice form is silent with regard to the warranty condition. The allegations of the complainant is that the said set became defective from the very beginning. As per the representations of the complainant the service personnel of the first opposite party inspected the set and suggested certain reasons, instead of rectifying the defect fully. Again the complaint contacted the opposite parties. It is alleged that another 2 sets of machine having the same model were entrusted with the complainant. But those machines are used one and defective and the opposite parties have not taken any sincere attempt to rectify the defects of the set. The entire actions of the opposite parties are to be treated as unfair trade practice and it will amounts to cheating. By way of denial of rectify the defects of the set or supply of a new set for the defective set will amounts to gross deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is noticed that the second opposite party has not entered appearance before this Forum to explain the whole matter of this unfair trade practice shown to a bonafide purchaser. This shows the irresponsible attitude of the second opposite party towards a customer. The contentions raised by the first opposite party has no substance and it will not have any locus standi. The unfair trade practice, gross deficiency in service and negligence committed jointly by the opposite parties 1st 2nd. So they are fully liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the price of 20,700/- (Rupees Twenty thousand and seven hundred only) to the complainant, with 18% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization of the entire amount, after collecting the defects sets from the complainant pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, in convenience, harassment, financial loss, due to the unfair trade practice, cheating, gross service deficiency and culpable negligence, by way of supplying used and defective set subsequently and neglecting to rectify the defect of the original set or return the price of the set by the opposite parties in time, to the complainant, and pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the said amounts within 30 days from the date of receipts of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st h day of July 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW 1 - Santappan (Witness) Ext. A1 - Invoice dtd. 03.04.2008 Ext. A2 - Advocate Notice dtd. 20.09.2008 Ext. A3 - Postal Receipts Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Partyies/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:- | 
