Haryana

Karnal

CC/235/2024

Sanjeev Bansal Prop. Bansal Graphics And Editor Of News Paper Samay Ki Taqat - Complainant(s)

Versus

RSG Solutions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Gupta

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.235 of 2024

                                                        Date of instt.16.05.2024

                                                        Date of Decision: 02.12.2024

Sanjeev Bansal proprietor Bansal Graphics and Editor of News Paper “Samay Ki Taqat” aged about 50 years, resident of A-20 INR Royal City, Sector-29, Indri Road, Karnal, Haryana. Phone no.94165 41475. Aadhar no.7976 6275 2863.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. R.S.G. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1^st floor, Plot no.2, site no.37 and 38 LSc, Behind Kalkaji, P.O. Kalkaji. Delhi 110019 through its proprietor.
2. Sachin Chaudhary (Sr. BDE-Print & Graphics) RSG Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1^st floor, Polot no.2, site no.37 and 38 LSc, Local Shopping Complex P.O. Kalkaji, Delhi-110019.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

Argued by:  Shri Sandeep Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte, vide order Dt.09.07.2024.

                     (Neeru Agarwal, Member)

ORDER:   

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a printer Model No.SC-T3130X Large Format Printer EPIL (Sr. no.X6RL000945) from OP no.1 through OP no.2, vide bill no.RSG/3762 dated 27.03.2024 for a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- and this printer was installed on 02.04.2024 at the complainant’s address. The complainant was having business in the name and style of Bansal Graphics and complainant is also Editor of a Newspaper name “Samay Ki Taqat”. So the complainant was in need of a Big Printer, that can print newspaper having sheet size of 18x22 inch on both side. So, the complainant met with the OP no.2 in the month of March, 2024 and discuss about his need of a printer that can print newspaper having sheet size of 18x22 inch on both side. The OP no.2 suggest the complainant the abovesaid printer and said that he is Senior BDE at RSG Solutions and his company deals in Printer Category. So, complainant asked for a quotation from the OP no.2. After that OP no.2 issued a quotation on Letter Head of RSG Solutions Private Limited as well as through email to complainant with his official email id:

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 09.07.2024 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of quotation Ex.C1, copy of purchase bill Ex.C2, copy of customer service report Ex.C3, copies of emails to OPs Ex.C4 to Ex.C23, postal receipt Ex.C24, acknowledgement Ex.C25, online status report regarding delivery of notice Ex.C26 and Ex.C27 and closed the evidence on 02.09.2024 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant was in need of Printer which can print newspaper having sheet size of 18x22 inch on both side. So, on the assurance of OPs, on 27.03.2024, complainant purchased a printer from OPs, for a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- and the printer was installed on 02.04.2024. On the same day of installation of printer, the printer was not printing the 18x22 inch sheet on both side. Complainant complained about the same to the OPs and requested either to replace the printer or to refund its cost. Complainant sent many reminder to the OPs in this regard but the OPs neither accept his genuine requests of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. To prove his case, complainant has placed on file copy of quotation Ex.C1, copy of purchase bill Ex.C2, copy of customer service report Ex.C3, copies of emails to OPs Ex.C4 to Ex.C23, postal receipt Ex.C24, acknowledgement Ex.C25, online status report regarding delivery of notice Ex.C26 and Ex.C27. It has been proved from the abovesaid documents the printer was not printing the 18x22 inch sheet on both side and in this regard, complainant complained the OPs continuously but OPs did not hear the genuine request of complainant. It was the duty of the OPs either to replace the Printer in question or to refund the cost of the same but OPs did not do so. Moreover, OPs no.1 and 2 despite service did not appear and opted to be proceeded exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

7.             During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant has purchased a new printer, so he only wants to refund the cost of the printer.

8.             As per the tax invoice Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased Printer in question for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,36,000/-(Rs. one lakh thirty six thousand only) as cost of the printer in question to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental, pain agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to return the printer in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:02.12.2024     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                 Member                       Member