BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No :1245 of 2009

Date  of  Institution  :   01.09.2009

                                Date  of    Decision  :   18.02.2010

Unique Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.13, Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh.Vinod Kaushik.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     Nobal Informatique, SCO No.61, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

2]     Redington Service, SCO-5, F.F. Sec. 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Service Manager.

3]     Hewlet Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salapuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Banglore – 560 030 through its M.D.

4]     H.P.Sales, SCO 314, Sec. 38-D, Chandigarh, through its Area Manager.

                                                ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL              PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                      MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh.Subash Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        OPs No.1  exparte.

                        Sh.Vivek Chaturvedi, Auth. Rep. For OP No.2

                        Sh.Munish Goel, Adv. for OPs No.3 & 4.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT.

                The complainant purchased one Printer (All-in-One) of Model No.HP-M1120 from OP No.1 for Rs.13,900/- on 23.3.2009.  However, the said printer stopped working after giving some prints.  It was taken to OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre, who gave report dated 24.4.2009 to the effect ‘Problem Found in Toner, Toner weight is low’.  This was brought to the notice of OP No.1 and a request was made to change the printer but they flatly refused inspite of the fact that the printer was well within the warranty period of one year.  It is averred that the OP No.1 supplied a defective printer and concealed this fact at the time of selling the printer in question.  A legal notice was sent to OPs on 23.5.2009, which was not replied.  Ultimately, the complainant had to purchase a new printer on 1.6.2009 for a sum of Rs.5600/-.  It is asserted that the above act of OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer mentally, physically and financially.  Hence, this complaint claiming cost of the printer; compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

2]             On behalf of OP No.1, none has appeared inspite of having been duly served with the notice of complaint and therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

3]             OP No.2 filed reply and admitted that they are the authorized service provider for the manufacturer - HP (Hewlett Packard) and carrying on replacement activities for printers manufactured by HP during warranty period as per the terms & conditions.  It is stated that in response to the complaint lodged by the complainant with regard to problem in their HP Printer, the same was checked and it was found that the printer cartridge was lower than the stipulated weight range of the manufacturer’s HP warranty guidelines, accordingly the printer was rejected and treated out of warranty and the complainant’s representative was requested to take delivery of the printer.  It is also stated that any claim regarding replacement should have been addressed only to HP, the manufacturer of the printer or the dealer, who sold it to the complainant and not to OP No.2, who are an authorized service provider.  Rest of the assertions have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed. 

4]             A joint written statement has been filed by OPs No.3 & 4 wherein it is stated that LJ 1120 printer comes with an introductory toner, whose ink level is less than that of a normal toner and therefore, the OP No.2 could have given such a finding.  It is also stated that the Support Service Engineer, who inspected the Printer, found that it was working fine and the problem was that the ink level of the toner was displaying as low and hence the toner would need to be replaced. The complainant was informed about the names and addresses of the HP approved Authorized Replacement Centre and asked to get in touch with them to have the toner replaced.  It is asserted that the OPs No.3 & 4 cannot be held responsible if the complainant did not approach the HP approved Authorized Replacement Centre to have the toner validated and then replaced.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint qua OPs No.3 & 4 be dismissed.  

5]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

6]             We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

7]             The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant is a private limited company and the printer was purchased by the company for its business purposes.  According to him the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as the printer was purchased for a commercial purpose which is outside the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.     We do not find any merit in this argument. In case Singh Engineering Works Vs. S.K.Bluemetal Works, I (227) CPJ 140 (NC) while referring to the Authority M/s.Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC), it was held that words “for any commercial purpose” are intended to cover cases other than those of resale of the concerned goods.  It was further held that it would mean that goods purchased or services hired could be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit.  Profit was held to be the main aim of commercial purpose, but in case where goods purchased or service hired in an activity which is  not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be for a commercial purpose.  In another case Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. Vs. Devesh Jain (Dr.), II (2009) CPJ 67, the dental surgeon  had purchased a dental chair which was found defective. When he filed a complaint against the supplier, an objection was taken that he had obtained it for commercial purpose and therefore was not amenable to the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. This argument was also not accepted by the Hon`ble Delhi State Commission.  There are two Authorities of the Hon`ble State Commission, Chandigarh.  One is M/s A.B. Motors Private Ltd., Vs. M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd., in Appeal Case No.28 of 2006 decided on 28.04.2006 and another is Satyam Information Centre, Vs. Dr. O.P. Chaudhary in Appeal case No.982 of 2000/RBT NO.310/2006 decided on 24.08.2006.  In view of these Authorities the contention of the OP that the machine was purchased for a commercial purpose cannot be accepted as correct.

8]             The printer was purchased by the complainant on 23.03.2009 vide a retail invoice now marked Annexure C-1.  However, within one month it started giving problems.  A complaint was lodged with OP-2 regarding which a job sheet now Annexure C-2 was prepared showing that there was printer toner problem and the printer was not working properly.  The repair action shows that the printer was to be checked and thereafter toner was found low due to which it was not working.  Again the printer was taken to OP-2 on 24.04.2009 regarding which a job sheet now marked Annexure C-3 was prepared showing the printing problem and it was noticed that toner weight was low and therefore they rejected the case as under warranty as they could not repair. The complainant thereafter served a notice now marked as Annexure C-4 but when no action was taken by the OPs, he purchased a new printer vide Annexure C-5.  OP No. 3 and OP No. 4 are the manufacturer of the printer.  In para number 8 of their reply it was admitted that the printer LJ 1120 comes with an introductory toner whose ink level is less than that of a normal toner.  It is further mentioned in para number 9 that the support service engineer who inspected the printer, found that the printer was working fine but the problem was that of the ink level and the toner was low and therefore the toner needed to be replaced.  According to the OPs the complainant was informed about the names and addresses of the HP approved authorized replacement centre and was asked to get in touch to have the toner replaced.  It was further repeated in para number 10 of the reply.  However the OP-2 who is admitted to be the authorized service provider for he manufacturer HP Hewlett Packard and carrying on replacement activities for printers have a different story to tell.  In para number 7 of their reply it was admitted that the printer cartridge was lower than the stipulated weight range of the manufacturers’ HP warranty guidelines and therefore the printer was rejected and was treated out of warranty.  Again in para number 11 of the reply they mentioned that any claim regarding replacement could be addressed only to HP, the manufacturer of the printers or the dealer who sold the printer to the complainant and not to them.  In this manner the OPs themselves were not clear as to who was to replace the toner.  The contention of the manufacturer (OP No. 3 and OP No.4) was that the toner was to be replaced by the HP approved authorized replacement centre and was asked to get in touch with them.  However, the OP-2 who claims to be the authorized replacement centre did not replace the toner and directed the complainant to contact the manufacturer or the dealer who sold the same.  The result was that the problem continued and even service of the notice Annexure C-4 did not yield the desired result which not only caused harassment to the complainant but he had to spent Rs.5,600/- for purchasing the new printer vide Annexure C-5.  The OPs were definitely deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.  The printer which was having a defective toner with a low ink level was sold to the complainant with which he could not work.

9]             The Learned Counsel for the OPs referred to para 12 of the reply filed by OP-2 vide which it was mentioned that now they are ready to offer a new cartridge replacement for the said printer.  It shows that this replacement of cartridge was to be provided by OP-2 at the time when the complainant was visiting their premises for the repair of the printer but they did not.  If they can provide the cartridge replacement now, they could have provided it at the relevant time but by not providing the replacement they caused not only mental and physical harassment to the complainant but also caused him a financial loss because he had to purchase a new printer.  However, since the complainant has already purchased a new printer, he does not need a cartridge replacement. He does not need two printers.  There is a common tendency among the dealers and service providers not to bother for the problems of the consumers and to go on delaying the service to be provided to them, little realizing the mental and physical harassment caused to the consumers who had to waste their valuable time and make rounds of their office/workshop for getting the service, which the dealers and manufacturers are legally bound to render under the warranty.  The request now being made by OP-2 is not being accepted by the complainant.  We are also not inclined to allow the replacement at this stage as the complainant does not need two printers.  Even if the replacement is given, one of the printers would be lying idle and the loss which has already been caused to the complainant cannot be indemnified.

10]            The Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the case Vyavasthapak Control Print (India)Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Agro Chemical, III (2007) CPJ 454 (NC), Singh Engineering Works Vs. S.K.Bluemetal Works, I (227) CPJ 140 (NC) and Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. Vs. Devesh Jain (Dr.), II (2009) CPJ 67.  In all those cases certain machines were supplied by the dealer which went out of order and were not repaired even inspite of repeated requests made by the consumers.  The Hon`ble National Commission and Delhi State Commission (in the last mentioned case) ordered the refund of the sale consideration paid by the consumers.  We are therefore of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the complaint should be allowed and the OPs should be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,900/- received by them as sale price of the printer.

11]            In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP No. 1,3 and 4 are directed to refund Rs.13,900/-  alongwith Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and thereafter the complainant is to deliver the printer back to the OPs.  If the amount is not paid to the complainant within the aforesaid period, the OPs would pay interest thereon @12% p.a. since the filing of the present compliant i.e. 1.09.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.  The file be consigned.