DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/138
Date of Institution : 21.02.2018/29.11.2021
Date of Decision : 06.07.2022
M/s Pharmaloids, Majitha Bye-Pass Road, P.O. Khanna Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab through its proprietor P.L. Arora son of Sh. Gian Chand Arora.
…Complainant Versus
Print Packaging System, through its partner/proprietor/authorized signatory 201 Trumph Industrial Estate, Pt. Motilal Nehru Road, Near Dindoshi Signal, Goregaon, (E) Mumbai-400063.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.
Present: Sh. Sanjay Dhingra Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Batra Adv counsel for opposite party.
Quorum:-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):
1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the M/s Pharmaloids, Majitha Bye-Pass Road (hereinafter referred as opposite party).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased from the opposite party an online Industrial Non Contract Ink Jet Printer Model IIJP-P2128 (Maplejet-Canada) vide invoice No. PFF on 16.9.2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,62,180/-. It is alleged that as per the quotation and verbal negotiation at the time of purchase the opposite party assured that there was warranty of one year from the date of purchase for any manufacturing defect. It is further alleged that within three months of the purchase of the machine, there was some problems in printing for which the complainant immediately intimated the opposite party telephonically. The opposite party told the complainant to clean the printer head with the cleaning solution provided by the opposite party alongwith the machine, but despite that the problem remained the same and the complainant time and again requested the opposite party to rectify the problems. On 15.6.2017 the service engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and despite much efforts on his part, the machine did not work properly and the service engineer of the opposite party had to remove the printing head for taking it to the factory for necessary repair. But after that the said repair has not been carried out although the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the machine is not repairable due to some manufacturing defect. It is further alleged that as per the terms of warranty as given in quotation dated 30.7.2016 as well as verbal assurance the opposite party is liable to replace the said Printer Head or in alternative replace the entire machine so that the working of the complainant not affected. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.7.2017 to the opposite party. On this, it was agreed that the complainant would pay an amount of Rs. 35,637/- for the replacement of Printing Head as repairing and service charges. The complainant deposited a cheque of Rs. 35,637/- in favour of opposite party and on 18.8.2017 the service engineer of the opposite party approached the complainant and showed his inability to repair the said Printer Machine. Aggrieved by this act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant was constrained to stop the payment of aforesaid cheque dated 19.8.2017 as the agreed service was not provided. It is further alleged that the complainant is self employed and the said machine was to be used for the purpose of his business to earn his livelihood. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
i) To refund the amount of Rs. 1,62,180/- by taking back the printer machine.
ii) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 7,500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that complainant is not a consumer and the complainant had purchased the machine in question for Industrial Production purpose only not for earning livelihood. The complainant has not come with clean hands. The complainant is legally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 35,637/- to the opposite party. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the machine Ink Jet Printer Model IIJP-P2128 for an amount of Rs. 1,62,180/- as per invoice No. T16/17/-396 dated 6.12.2016. However, the complainant made only part payment and was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 21,559/- towards the cost of the machine as well as Rs. 14,078/- towards the Engineer Service charges i.e. total amount of Rs. 35,637/-. The complainant deposited the cheque of Rs. 37,637/- to the opposite party against which the opposite party sent his Service Engineer from Delhi to Amritsar with New Print-Head to complainant's company to install the same and the Engineer set the machine to perfect condition. The complainant was unnecessary finding faults with the machine so that he could have an excuse not to make the balance payment. The Service Engineer visited Amritsar and removed the defects in the machine and gave proper service to the complainant. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Aparana Garg Prop. Ex.O.P1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has purchased an online Industrial Non Contract Ink Jet Printer Model IIJP-P2128 (Maplejet-Canada) vide invoice No. PFF on 16.9.2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,62,180/- for the purpose of his business to earn his livelihood. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that within three months from the purchase of the machine, there was some problems in printing for which the complainant immediately intimated the opposite party telephonically. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that on 15.6.2017 the service engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and despite much efforts the machine did not work properly and the service engineer of the opposite party had to remove the printing head for taking it to the factory for necessary repair and the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the machine is not repairable due to some manufacturing defect. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.7.2017 to the opposite party and it was agreed that the complainant would pay an amount of Rs. 35,637/- for the replacement of Printing Head as repairing and service charges and the complainant deposited a cheque of Rs. 35,637/- in favour of opposite party and on 18.8.2017 the service engineer of the opposite party approached the complainant and showed his inability to repair the said Printer Machine.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that that the complainant purchased the machine Ink Jet Printer Model IIJP-P2128 for an amount of Rs. 1,62,180/- as per invoice No. T16/17/-396 dated 6.12.2016, but the complainant has paid only part payment and was liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 21,559/- towards the cost of the machine as well as Rs. 14,078/- towards the Engineer Service charges i.e. total amount of Rs. 35,637/-. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further argued that the opposite party sent its Service Engineer from Delhi to Amritsar with New Print-Head to the complainant's company to install the same and the Engineer set the machine to perfect condition and removed the defects in the machine and gave proper service to the complainant and now the above said Printer is in the possession of complainant and thereafter the complainant not only kept the machine part but also gave instructions to his Bank to stop the payment of the cheque. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that the complainant has not paid the service charges of Rs. 14,078/- of Service Engineer which was sent by the opposite party from Delhi to Amritsar and remaining payment of Rs. 21,559/- and moreover a cheque bearing No. 555573 for Rs. 35,637/- dated 18.8.2017 drawn on Punjab National Bank, which was presented by the complainant to opposite party Bank IDBI Bank, Vile Parle, Mumbai, but the said cheque was returned dishonored from the Bank with the remark “payment stopped by drawer”. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defects in the product.
9. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the judgments of The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which it is held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”
10. Further the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”
Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report, so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the above said Ink Jet Printer Model IIJP-P2128. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
6th Day of July, 2022
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member