Orissa

Rayagada

CC/169/2016

Gouri Chandra Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Southern Computer & Peripherals - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.169/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Goura Chandra Patnaik,aged about 33years, S/o Pramod Chandra Patnaik, Resident          of R.K.Nagar,  Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ………Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor, Southern Company and Peripherals ,30-15-138/13 Shop No.13,Binayak complex, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam(AP)530020.
2. Cannon India Pvt. Ltd.,D-179,Okhla Industrial  Area,Phase-1,New Delhi-110020.                                                                                                                                                                                                                ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps:

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Cannon Printer    from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.5,200/- on 07.03.2016 vide Money Receipt No.154   but  after  two months of its  purchase the printer   was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached the customer care  but  they did not care to repair the said printer nor replaced the same and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to refund the cost of  Rs.5,200/- . and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.p 2 appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP 1 neither appeared nor filed written version, as such the Op 1 was set exparte. It is submitted by the O.P 2  that  the printer was sold by the OP 1 and there is no direct relationship between the OP 1 & 2  and the Op 2 is not liable for any acts of omission and commission by the OP 1. On the request of the Ops  the complainant  neither produced any invoice nor shared the serial number of the printer with the representatives of the Ops and choose to file this complaint  wherein he for the first time mentioned the invoice and serial number of the printer. Till date he has not allowed the engineers to inspect the printer on one pretext or the other. Thus due to complete anon cooperation from the complainant the said printer could not be examined by the expert engineers of the OP to ascertain the defect if any or the reason for the said defect, despite repeated request from the Ops.  The OP 2 also wrote e-mail to the complainant but the complainant himself has avoid both the telephone call and e-mail at one pretext or the other the same. The printer has been purchased and used for commercial purposes and therefore does not fall within the definition of the term consumer as defined  U/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act and is not entitled to any relief  and hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed  with cost..                                                                                         FINDINGS

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective printer  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of using  the printer   after two months of    its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the printer in question was  found defective after two months of  its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the printer  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective printer   is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the printer   which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects just  after months of its purchase and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the printer with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the printer   for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to replace  the printer   and  give fresh  warranty  and pay monetary compensation of Rs2,000/-  and cost of Rs.500/-  to the complainant. Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 24^th day November,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Money Receipt.

 By the Opp.Party:

1. Acknowledgement of service request.

 

                                                                                                           President