Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/83/2015

Canon India Pvt. Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Kumar & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Arora

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	83 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	10.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2015

 

 

Canon India Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 7th Floor, Tower B, Building No.5, DLF Epitome, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Through its authorised signatory Ms. Pooja Chhikara).

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, R/o #2704, Sector 52, U.T., Chandigarh.

                     ....Respondent/Complainant.

2. M/s Copier Plus, Through its Partner/Proprietor, SCO No.362-363 (Ground Floor), Sector 34-A, U.T., Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by: Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed by Opposite Party No.2, against the order dated 27.02.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally as under:-

“11]      In view of the forgoing discussions, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties and the same is allowed qua them and the Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

i)  To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for having indulged in unfair trade practice as well as for being deficient in giving proper service to the complainant.

ii) To pay Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation.            

        This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay the decreed amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the complainant till it is paid, besides paying cost of litigation.”

2.                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and is doing the work of Photostat, Typing, Printing, Photography, Scanning, School Projects etc.at his residence.  It was stated that the complainant purchased two machines – copier, printer & scanner from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.9,500/- and Rs.6,500/- (totalling Rs.16,000/-) on 25.5.2013 and 21.8.2013 respectively (Annexures C-1 & C-2).  It was further stated that the complainant was charged Rs.6,500/- for the machine bearing Model No.MP 287, whereas on its box, the MRP was mentioned as Rs.3,865/- (without ciss tank) (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 charged the complainant in excess of MRP.  It was further stated that the Canon Authorised E-Store website was also offering the said machine-Model MP 287 for Rs.5,499/- including one Easy Ink Tank alongwith warranty period of 12 months, free installation, shipping and interest free EMIs and the said machine on the E-Store, without Easy Ink Tank was at the cost of Rs.2,999/- (Annexures C-5).  It was further stated that in this way, Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.2,500/- approx. in excess from the complainant while selling Machine Model No.287. It was further stated that both the machines were given one year warranty and these were to be installed by the representative of Opposite Party No.1.  It was further stated that no representative of Opposite Party No.1 visited the complainant for installation of the machine and the complainant had to install the same at his own. 

3.         It was further stated that both the machines failed to give the desired results and the complainant made a complaint in the office of Opposite Party No.1, a number of times.  It was further stated that both the said machines had some manufacturing defect and did not work even for a single day properly and became a waste for the complainant in-spite of spending such a huge amount. It was further stated that even the representative of the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect, in the machines, and put the same in order.  It was further stated that even the gift assured by Opposite Party No.1, with every machine, had also not been provided to the complainant.  It was further stated that ultimately, legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

4.         When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.16,000/- paid towards the final bill/invoice of both the machines alongwith interest @18% per annum; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; Rs.50,000/- for committing unfair trade practice, deficiency in service & for selling the machine for the price higher than its MRP; Rs.50,000/- towards the business loss due to non-functioning of the machines & other financial losses and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.  

5.         Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that since the machines were purchased for doing commercial business, hence the complainant did not fall under the definition of a consumer under the Act.  It was further stated that the complainant was given one year manufacturer’s warranty of printer only and not of Ciss Tank and Cartridge.  It was further stated that the complainant agreed to the same and on his instructions, Ciss Tank was attached to the printer. It was further stated that Printer was costing Rs.3,850/-, Ciss Tank plus ink were costing Rs.2,000/- and installation of tank/service charges were Rs.650/-.  It was denied that Opposite Party No.1 sold the printers over and above the MRP.  It was further stated that the printer was in perfect running condition, at the time of its sale, which could be seen from the fact that the complainant had purchased the printer on 21.8.2013, and he was using the same till date.  It was further stated that any offer or gift was to be given by the Company/manufacturer and Opposite Party No.1 had no role in it. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.         Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that it had no direct relationship including of commercial nature with Opposite Party No.1 and hence, it (Opposite Party No.2) was not liable for the acts & omissions including illegal ones, if any, of its dealers/resellers of its product which meant that if any promise was made by the reseller, which was not stipulated in the warranty card or warranty terms & conditions, it would not bind Opposite Party No.2.  It was further stated that the relationship between Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.1 was on principal to principal basis. It was further stated that the Engineer of the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2 installed the Printer-1 at his shop and the complainant signed the report after the printer was satisfactorily installed at his shop (Annexure B).  It was further stated that the complainant also purchased Printer Model 287 after his complete satisfaction. 

7.         It was further stated that there was no complaint of any nature, with regard to any problem, in the machines. It was denied for want of knowledge that the complainant purchased two machines from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.16,000/- with standard warranty of one year. It was also denied for want of knowledge that the complainant was charged Rs.6,500/- for the machine Model No.287 whereas the complainant later on checked that the print price i.e. MRP as mentioned on the box was Rs.3,865/- (without ciss tank).  It was further stated that, as such, Opposite Party No.1, at the very stage of sale, misled the complainant by selling the machine over and above Maximum Retail Price (MRP). It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 cheated the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,500/- approximately. It was further stated that there was no allegation of overcharging against Opposite Party No.2.  It was vehemently denied that the said machines had some manufacturing defect and the same did not work even for a single day properly.  It was further stated that the complainant be put to strict proof of the averments contained in the complaint about the defect in the machines.  It was further stated that the problem, if any, in the machines was due to the use of duplicate refilled cartridge and, therefore, the complainant was required to use original consumables to run the printer. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

8.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

9.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

10.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

11.       We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.  

12.       The Counsel for  appellant/Opposite Party No.2 submitted that respondent No.1/complainant concealed the material fact. He further submitted that there was no direct relationship between the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 and respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate that Printer-2 had been sold with CIS (Continuous Ink Supply) for Rs.6,500/- and even CIS was neither the product of the appellant-Company nor the appellant-Company deals in CIS. He further submitted that the MRP mentioned on the box was only for     Printer-2. He further submitted that the price of Rs.6,500/- was charged on account of additional part viz. ciss easy ink.

13.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal, is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

14.       It is evident that respondent No.1/complainant purchased Canon Pixma MP-287 on 21.8.2013 vide bill (Annexure C-2) on payment of Rs.6,500/-. The grievance of respondent No.1/complainant is that Opposite Party No.1 charged Rs.6,500/- for Canon Pixma MP287 purchased by him on 21.08.2013, whereas, its value as indicated on the box containing the machine was Rs.3,865/- and as per Annexure C-5, price was Rs.2,999/- without ciss ink tank. Besides, respondent No.1/complainant has averred that Opposite Party No.1 did not install the machine and the same was got installed by respondent No.1/complainant.

16.       The aforesaid controversy was rightly settled by the District Forum in Paras No.8 and 9 of its order, which are extracted hereunder:-

“8]       We are surprised to note that Opposite Party No.2 on one hand has tried to feign ignorance about the sale of its machines by Opposite Party No.1, but has admitted to have installed the same at the premises of the complainant.  The Opposite Party No.2 has admitted that there is an agreement on the principal-to-principal basis between Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 for the sale of the machines, but while disclosing that the Opposite Party No.1 has cheated the complainant in charging Rs.2200/- extra, but surprisingly no such agreement has been produced on record from where we can adduce that the acts of Opposite Party No.1 in over charging the complainant were in the control of Opposite Party NO.2.  Therefore, we are compelled to believe that though Opposite Party No.1 has certainly charged Rs.2200/- extra from the complainant on the sale of machine in question on 21.8.2013, but at the same time Opposite Party No.2 cannot be absolved of its responsibilities as it has failed to take any action against Opposite Party No.1.  Such acts of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 amount to unfair trade practice. 

9]       The complainant has placed on record copies of printed documents Ann.C-7 & C-8 and apart from other such printed photographs, which clearly shows the difference in the quality of printing and the OPs No.1 & 2 have not explained as to why such a variation has occurred in the printing or what are the reasons that there are repeated vertical lines on such printed documents.  Opposite Party No.2 has not come forward to inspect the machines in question by either asking the complainant to get the machines checked from its authorised service centre or by sending an engineer to find out as to what was the reason for such poor quality of printing.  The Opposite Party No.2 has however claimed that it was on account of use of sub-standard ink cartridge by the complainant whereas the job cards Ann.B, Ann.C & Ann.D, do not mention any such advice by its service engineer, therefore, we are left to believe that there is certainly some other problem with the product.  The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant on this score too.”

As per Annexure C-4, price of Canon Pixma MP287 All-in-One Printer with Easy Ink Tank system was Rs.5,499/- and the price of Pixma MP-287 All-in-One Inkjet Printer was Rs.2,999/-. While the price of Rs.5,499/- was with Easy Ink Tank, the price of Rs.2,999/- was apparently without Easy Ink Tank. Even if, we accept the contention of the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 that the price of Rs.6,500/- included the price of ciss easy ink, it has failed to bring, on record, the price of ciss easy ink tank to prove that extra price was on account of the same. It is, thus, established from the documents, on record, that Opposite Party No.1 charged an amount of Rs.2,200/- extra from respondent No.1/complainant, on account of the sale of machine, in question, on 21.8.2013 and since the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, admitted its relationship with Opposite Party No.1, on the principal-to-principal basis for the sale of the machines, and that Opposite Party No.1 cheated respondent No.1/ complainant by charging extra, it (appellant/Opposite Party No.2) cannot be heard to say that it did not have any control/check on Opposite Party No.1, in charging over and above the price of the machine. 

17.       The Opposite Parties have also failed to controvert the assertion of respondent No.1/complainant regarding non installation of printer machine (Sr.No.LSVA74552).

18.       As regards the promised gifts to be given by Opposite Party No.1, the District Forum rightly held that since this allegation of respondent No.1/complainant was not answered by Opposite Party No.1, the same had gone unrebutted, whereas the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 cleverly washed away its hands claiming that whatsoever was promised by it, deserved to be addressed by it alone, and it could not be held liable, for any promises, which were beyond its warranty terms & conditions.  It is pertinent to mention here that when Opposite Party No.1 is authorized dealer of the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, the latter could not wriggle out of its liability, on account of indulgence into unfair trade practices, by the former. As such, the District Forum rightly held the Opposite Parties jointly liable for deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practices. It, therefore, rightly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant towards compensation for deficiency in giving proper service, and unfair trade practice, besides Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation.

19.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

20.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

21. .       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

22.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

23.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

April 27, 2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 Ad