DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.292 of 15

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 14-10.2015

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: 27-04-2016

Ajay Kumar C/o Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Kadma Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                

1. North India Computers-14-15, SCO 38, 1^st Floor, Sector 20C, Chandigarh.

1. Mr. Manish Sihag-9729238321, IT Manager, (For Pankaj Gupta-9646894430) Regional Office Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, 102, HUDA Complex, Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:-   Complainant in person.

                 None for OP no. 1.

                 OP no. 2 exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 22.01.2015 he had purchased one Ricoh Muli-Function Laser Printers vide bill model No. S P200AS and S/R No. T793MB01276 from OP no. 2, who is authorized dealer of OP no. 1.  It is alleged that since the purchase of the Printer in question it could not work because the power in the Printer could not be ON.  Despite repeated complaints, the engineers deputed by the OP no. 1 could not rectify the defect.  It seems that the Printer has inherent defect. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the printer was sold to his agent i.e. OP no. 2 by OP no1 at his Chandigarh office and the material was dispatched to Bhiwani through courier on the advise of the OP no. 2.  It is submitted that the complainant has never approached us directly for purchase of printer in question and nor contacted us for non working of printer. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 OPs no. 2 has failed to come present.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.03.2016.

4.                 We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record on the file.

5.                 As per the contention of the complainant since the purchase of the Printer in question it could not work because the power in the Printer could not be ON.  Despite repeated complaints, the engineers deputed by the OP no. 1 could not rectify the defect.  It seems that the Printer has inherent defect.

6.                The Ops did not bother to bear and contest the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant in the present circumstances of the case.  Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to refund the cost of the Printer to the complainant and the complainant is directed to deliver the Printer in question to the Ops immediately. This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:.27-04-2016.                                                                (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                       President,        

                                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Ansuya Bishnoi),

                          Member