SMT. CHANDIRAMA CHKRABORTY, MEMBER

          In short the case of the complainant is that  the complainant purchased a Printer , brand HP Printer Gt5810, Sl No.CN6712GOMT on 03.11.2016 from the   OP No. 1 at a price of  Rs, 11,100/-. The Op No. 1  gave assurance  to the complainant that the said printer is the best quality and produced from reputed company; he also assured that within the warranty of one year the printer would be provided service by the authorized service provider of the Co. ie the No. 2 and 3 the authorized manufacturer of the printer.  Also the defective parts of the printer if found in future would be replaced and repaired by the said Co. on 02.08.2017 said printer became defective and did not function properly. The complainant reported the inconvenience to the OP no.1 as per their earlier assurance.  But the Ops did not provide any service. Thereafter as per guidance of the OP no;.1 the complainant reported the matter to the OP no. 2 over telephone and then the OP no. 2 send two persons who provided required service but the printer did not function. Thereafter one Santanu Patra of the  co. came and checked the printer and for the time being he repaired the machine which became inoperative just after 10 days. Immediately the complainant  reported the Ops to repair the machine, but none of them responded. Ultimately the petitioner sent a letter to the OP no. 3 and  demanded replacement of the printer.  But in spite of repeated reminders to all the Ops, none of them took any steps to rectify the  defects of the printer. So, on 16.10.2017 the complainant lodged a complaint before the CAFBP Tamluk.  But there too the Ops did not attend deliberately. Then and then only as per guidance of the AD of the CAFBP the complainant has come before this Forum  with a prayer for a direction to the Ops for replacement of the printer or to return Rs. 11,100/-  and other reliefs.

          The complainant also knocked the door of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice at Purba  Medinipur against the Ops with the same allegations but the none of the Ops responded there. So on  05.12.2017 the Authority suggested the complainant to file complaint before this Forum.

          Summons were issued upon all the OPs .

          OP Nos . 1 and 2 did not appear and contested the case,  OP NO. 3 contested and filed written versions.  The OP no. that in the warranty policy, the obligations of the OP s was to repair the printer and not to replace  the same or to refund  the costs as claimed by the complainant.

          It is  the further case of this OP that all the complaints of the printer had been repaired at the instance of the Ops. The OP no.3 contended that mishandling of the system or pirated software or virus could seriously hamper the components which is not in the warranty system.  This Op further submits  that as per the HP warranty guidelines the Ops are ready to repair the system of the printer.

          The Op no. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          The issued required to be discussed are that if the case is complainant and if the complainant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for.

                                                 Decision with Reasons.

          Both the issued are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and their inter-relatedness.

                   Ld advocate for the complainant has filed series of documents. First of all is the invoice to show that the printer had been purchased by the complainant on 3.11.2016 at cost of Rs. 11,100,00/-. In the declaration part , in column No. 3  standard warranty is given by the manufacturer.  It appears from the complaint that the printer had been defect for the first time on 02.08.2016 and it was reported to the manufacturer. On 11.08.2017 one Santanu Patra came and checked the printer and somehow brought it into order. After only  10 days the printer again became defective  and the printer had been repaired and thus in total five times the printer had been repaired by the authorized agency of the Co. but the printer was not brought into order.

          All the five Service Call report has been filed by the complainant where from this Commission finds that different remarks about the service of the printer  has been made by the technician in the given column. Repeated service calls and the unsuccessful repairs amply proves that the printer had some manufacturing defects which  the Co. is liable to  compensate by way of refund and compensation.

          In course of argument on 16.10.2020 the ld. Advocate for the OP no. 3 proposed that he would advice the OP no. 3 so that the printer in questin will be repaired properly, but till date no action has been taken  to that effect.

         Considering all the above aspects, this Commission believe  that there is prima facie good case in favour of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

          Both the issues re accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

          Hence, it is

                                                                 ORDERED

          that the CC No. 96 of 2018 be and the same is allowed in favour of the complainant ex parte against the OP No.1 and 2 and on contest against the OP no. 3.

          All the Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund the value of the Printer in question i.e Rs. 11,100/- to the complainant along with Rs. 6,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/-  towards cost of the litigation within one month from the date of this order,  in default they will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day as penalty till full satisfaction of the decreetal amount.

          In default to compliance of the above order, the complainant will be at liberty to put this  order into execution.