RICKY KHONGLAM V/S SACHIN KUMAR - Consumer Court Case

Delhi

North West

CC/1055/2015

SACHIN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RICKY KHONGLAM - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 1055/2015

D.No._______________ Dated:________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

SACHIN KUMAR S/o SH. RAM JEEVAN,

R/o WP-24, WAZIRPUR VILLAGE,

NEAR WATER TANK, PHASE-I,

ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI-110052.… COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. RICKY KHOLGLAM,

C/o SYLVESTER KHONGLAM ACCESSORIES,

NONGTHYMMAI, JYLLI SHOP, SHILLONG,

MEGHALAYA, INDIA.

2. M/s NSI INFINIUM GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,

4612/17, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, DELHI.

3. M/s KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,

2^nd FLOOR, CENTRUM PLAZA, GOLF COURSE ROAD,

SECTOR-53, GURGAON-122002.

HARYANA, INDIA… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

Date of Institution: 10.09.2015 Date of decision: 09.01.2018

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 28.07.2015, the complainant booked a Kyocera ECOSYS Multifunction Printer-FS 1120 MFP (grey colour)

CC No. 1055/2015 Page 1 of 5

at website: www.infibeam.com (online shopping site) for Rs.8,649/- and the website display printer specification & one year extended warrantee + one year accidental damage protection and one year accidental and liquid damage protection. The complainant further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.8,649/- through internet banking on 28.07.2015 and Kyocera ECOSYS Multifunction Printer-FS 1120 MFP (grey colour) was received at his residence on 02.08.2015 and the product code *NSQ2Y02282* and after 14 days of receiving, the printer started giving technical problems, then the complainant called on customer care i.e. OP-2 and told the problem but OP-2 did not give any response. The complainant further alleged that the complainant again called customer care i.e. OP-3 and told problem to technical department & marketing manager of Kyocera company and the marketing manager told the complainant about visiting charges of Rs.1,500/- of single visit and repair and solve technical problem charges will be extra. Thereafter the complainant approached to OP and the customer care of OP but no avail and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the sum of Rs.8,649/- being the cost of the printer alongwith interest from the date of purchase as well as compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing mental agony

CC No. 1055/2015 Page 2 of 5

and harassment and has also sought Rs.2,000/- for litigation cost.

3. Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 05.11.2015. But none for the OP-1 & OP-2 appeared on 05.11.2015, 09.12.2015, 29.02.2016 & 25.04.2016 and as such OP-1 & OP-2 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2016. OP-3 has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement. In the written statement OP-3 submitted that the machine was booked from website of OP-2 and supplied by OP-1 for consideration of Rs.8,649/- and as per policy, OP-3 does not provide warrantee for sale through any online portal. OP-3 further submitted that on the warrantee card , it is clearly mentioned that “warrantee of the product is not applicable if the product is purchased through online portals/unauthorized partners, resellers & retailers” and same statement is also mentioned on the official website (

4. The complainant filed rejoinderand denied the version of OP-3.

5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also

CC No. 1055/2015 Page 3 of 5

placed on record copy of retail invoice no. DT-150715-2129-0050 dated 15.07.2015, copy of retail invoice no. DT-150729-2320-0017 dated 29.07.2015 and copy of brochure/manual of the product.

6. On the other hand, Sh. K. Swetharanyan,Authorized Representative OP-3 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per defence taken by OP-3 in the written statement. This witness of OP-3 also filed copy of authorization in his favour and warrantee card showing terms & conditions and has also filed written arguments.

7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP-3 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record.Admittedly the complainant has purchased the product through online portal and has also placed on record copy of document i.e. brochure/manual of the product obtained through online providing one year manufacturer warrantee. There is no mention in the said document that there will be no warrantee in case the product is purchased through online portal. Thus, this Forum is of opinion that OP-3 has failed to prove it defence.In these circumstances, this forum is of opinion that OP-3 is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

8. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-3 to

i) To refund to the complainant the cost of the printer i.e. Rs.8,649/-

CC No. 1055/2015 Page 4 of 5

on return of the disputed product by the complainant.

ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant which includes cost of litigation.

9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-3 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-3 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.