Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/101

Sri Amitabha Ghosh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Computer Mrinalini. And Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. K. Datta.

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 101   of   2013

Sri Amitava Ghosh,
S/O- Late Rabindra Narayan Ghosh,
Swarupananda Sarani, Kailashahar,
Unakoti, Tripura.            ..........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

1. Proprietor, 
    Computer Mrinalini,
    Melarmath, Agartala 

2. The Managing Director, 
    Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
    2nd Floor, Tower- C,
    Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43,
    Golf Course Road, 
    Gurgaon-122002,         ........Opposite parties.
    
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant       : Sri Koushik Datta and 
                                      Smt. Chanda Bhowmik,
                                      Advocates. 
                           
For the O.P. No.1         : Sri Pradip Chakraborty and 
                                     Sri Sudip Chakraborty
                                     Advocates.

    For the O.P. No.2      : None appeared. 

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 21.01.15.

 

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Amitava Ghosh of Swarupananda Sarani, Kailashahar, Unakoti against the O.Ps, namely The proprietor of Computer Mrinalini, Melarmath, Agartala and The Managing Director, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had purchased a printer of Samsung brand of model no- ML 1666 from the O.P. No.1, Computer Mrinalini, for Rs.5,239/- plus tax against invoice no- 863 dated 30.07.12. Soon after taking delivery of the printer, it started giving printing problem. Immediately he placed the printer with the service centre of Samsung Pvt. Ltd at Agartala to rectify the defect. The expert of the service centre made all endevours to put the printer in working condition, but they failed. Then he brought the matter to the notice of the O.P. No.2, The Managing Director, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in number of times but it yielded no results. On his repeated requests, the O.P. No.2 did not replace the defective printer by a new one. Finding no other alternative, he moved the International Consumer Rights Protection Council which issued notice to the O.P. No.2 for replacement of the defective printer by a new one. Inspite of that the O.P. No.2 did not take any action. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps attracts negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The O.P. No.1, the proprietor of Computer Mrinalini, the seller of the printer, has contested the case by filing written objection denying all the averments made by the complainant in his complaint. It is asserted that the problem in the printer arose due to mishandling of the printer by the complainant. It is denied that the printer was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. According to the the O.P. No.1, they were never deficient in rendering service to the complainant. They are unnecessarily made party to this proceeding. Hence, the case is bad for misjoinder of party.
    
4.        The O.P. No.2 Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. did not contest the case and hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against them.
    
5.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1: Bill dated 30.7.12,
    Exhibit 2: Customers Service Record Cards,
    Exhibit 3 Series: E-mails sent to the O.P. No.2 (4 sheets)
    Exhibit 4: E-mail sent to the International Consumer Rights Protection Council.
    Exhibit 5 series: E-mails sent to the O.P. No.2( 3 sheets),
    Exhibit 6: Legal Notice sent to the O.P. No.2.

6.        No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. No.1.
    FINDINGS:
7.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are;
    (i) Whether the complainant had purchased a printer of Samsung brand of model no. ML1666 from the O.P. No.1;
    (ii) Whether the said printer suffered from inherent manufacturing defect;
    (iii) Whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant. If so, whether the O.P. is liable to replace the defective printer by a new one or to refund the price of the printer.
    
8.        We had already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
9.        There is no manner of dispute that the complainant had purchased a printer of Samsung brand of model no- ML 1666 from the O.P. No.1, the authorized dealer of the Samsung products, for Rs.5,239/- with 5% tax against invoice no-863 dated 30.7.12. It is alleged that soon after purchase of the printer, it started giving problem in printing. Immediately he placed the printer with the Samsung Authorized Service Centre at Agartala to cure the defect. On testing of the printer the expert of the service centre identified the problem as 'jam of the printing paper' in the machine. They made the printer serviceable by replacing the defective part of the printer. As per the complainant, the printer suffered from inherent manufacturing defect and the company adopted unfair trade practice by selling a defective printer. From the Customer Service Record Cards produced by the complainant itself suggest that he placed the printer with the Samsung Authorized Service Centre on 2 occasions with printing problem during the period of warranty. It also appears that he made several correspondence with the O.P. No.2, Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., for replacement of the defective printer by a new one but he did not get any redress from them. Finding no other alternative, he moved the International Consumer Rights Protection Council for appropriate action which issued a notice to the O.P. No.2, Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. to refund the price of the printer within 7 days but they did not respond to the notice.

10.        As it appears, soon after purchase of the printer, when it put to use, it did not function properly. This facts has received support from the Customer Service Record card which reveals that after carrying out test of the printer by the expert of the service centre it was detected as sensor failure. The complainant, in his evidence as P.W. 1, has stated that the printer has been suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. The O.P. No.2, Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., did not contest the case and led any evidence in rebuttal. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. The burden of proving lies on the manufacturer that the printer is not suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. But the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the machine has failed to discharge their obligation. From the Customers Service Record Cards it indicates that the defective parts of the printer was replaced. It is the contention of the complainant that even after replacement of the defective part the printer is not working properly. It appears that the complainant made several correspondence with the manufacturer of the printer (O.P. No.2) for replacement of the defective printer by a new one but it yielded no results. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the above contention of the complainant. 
11.        Having gone through the evidence adduced by the complainant and the documents on record, we are satisfied that the printer purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.1 is defective goods within the meaning of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act.

12.        It is needless to say that for non-replacement of the defective printer by  a new one by the manufacturer the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and hence, the action of the O.P falls within the ambit of negligence and deficiency in rendering service. That being so, the complainant is liable to be compensated.
        
13.        It appears that the O.P. No.1 is the dealer of the Samsung products and the O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of the products. The O.P. No.1 is the agent of the O.P. No.2. It is settled law that if a agent acts within the scope of its authority, the principal is bound by the act of his agent. Act of the agent should considered as the acts of the principal. Keeping this aspects in mind, we are of the view that the O.P. No.2, Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the printer, is liable to pay  compensation for not rendering service to the complainant.
        
14.        Resultantly, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.P. No.2, The Managing Director, Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd is directed to replace the defective printer by a new one of Similar model or to refund the price of the printer. They are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of litigation. The O.P No.2 is to pay the above said amount within 6 (six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the payable amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made.        

15.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA