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

========

Complaint  Case No  : 981 of 2009

Date of Institution :  14.07.2009

Date of  Decision   :  06.05.2010

Yadwinder Puri s/o Lt.Sh. K.K. Puri, #65, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     Onkar Computer Services, SCO No. 41, Level 2, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Prop. sh. Sarbjeet Singh.

2]   RT Outsourcing Services Ltd., SCO No. 128-129, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3]   HP Head Office, Phase-II, DLF Building Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.Puneeta Sethi, Adv. for the Complainant.

          OPs No. 1 & 2 Ex-parte.

         Sh.Vipul Dhirmani, Adv. for OP No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

        In the instant case, a complaint has been filed by Yadwinder Puri – Complainant, seeking refund as well as compensation from the OPs for selling a defective Printer to him.

        The factual position of the case is as under:-

1]      The Complainant purchased a HP Colourjet 1600 Printer (Mode:CB 373A) from OP No.1 on 09.09.2006, vide Retail Invoice No. 378 for Rs.14,500/-. Unfortunately, he found big coloured patches on every page printed right from the first day. When he approached OP No.1, the Printer was repaired and returned to the Complainant. But the problem persisted. The Complainant, then requested the OP No. 1 to replace the Printer. At this stage, he was referred to OP No.2, who are the authorized service station of OP No.3. OP No.2 took the defective Printer on 6.9.2007, supposedly for repair, but never returned it to the complaint. Despite various visits and requests by the Complainant, the Printer is still lying with OP No.2. The fault verbally conveyed to the Complainant at the time of handing over the Printer was that the logic card needed to be replaced which would come from Delhi. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, seeking relief against the OPs with the contentions of harassment and deficiency in service.

2]      Notice of the complaint was duly sent to the OPs. 

3]      OP No. 1, in their reply have admitted that the Complainant had made complaint relating to the Printer with them. The same was got repaired and returned to him. The Complainant was also directed to visit OP No. 2, which is the authorized service station of OP No.3 for repair of the Printers. The Complainant has also made many on-line complaints to the OP No.3 after about 15-20 days of the deposit of the Printer with the OP No.2. They have pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part as they had only sold the Printer to the Complainant. Only OP No. 3 can replace the Printer and not the OP No.1.

        After filing the above reply, nobody turned up on behalf of OP No.1 on any of the subsequent dates of hearing; hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2009.

4]      OP No. 2 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 18.8.2009. The ex-parte was set-aside on 19.3.2010, but the order was withdrawn on 29.10.2009, as none appeared on their behalf.

5]      OP No.3 in its reply denied each allegation in the complaint. They state that they have no privity of contract with their Retailers and thus, have no control over their business activities. They are not aware that the Complainant had purchased a Printer from the OPs. Also, if any, customer has any genuine complaint against them, they have an efficient redressal department and 24 Hrs. Customer Care center. The Customer has not lodged any complaint with the customer Care Team in relation with the product. If the Complainant had any complaint, he would have contacted the OP No.3. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6]      We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.

7]      The Complainant is definitely aggrieved. He had purchased a Printer for his business. Not only was the Printer defective, but the OPs have not been able to repair it either. The defective Printer is still lying with OP NO.2. Despite efforts by the Complainant to approach all three OPs, no steps have been taken to give him a new/repaired Printer in good working condition.

8]      In view of the pleadings and the facts of the case, this complaint is hereby allowed with the following directions:-

i)  All OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund total amount of the Printer to the Complainant. The OPs may, thus, pay Rs.14,500/- to the Complainant.

ii)    The OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment of a gullible customer.

iii) The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.

9]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 06 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the sum of Rs.25,500/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase of the Printer i.e. 09.09.2006, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation.

10]    Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.05.2010                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                       Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’