ORDER

(Passed this on 21^st  March, 2017)

Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.

01.     This is a complaint against Opposite Parties, Samsung India Electronics Ltd and local dealer M/s Pankaj Electronics & Computers, regarding their failure to repair or replace defective laser printer sold to the complainant.

02.    O.P.-1 is the Manager/ Authorised Officer of Samsung India Electronics Company and O.P.-2 is local dealer of Samsung products. The complainant purchased a laser printer-cum- xerox model No. SCX-4321 of Samsung made from the OP2 for Rs. 14,500/- on 12/4/2012. A warranty card was issued with the printer. In very first month of purchase, the printer developed defect and became non functioning. The O.P.-2 repaired it on 2-3 times and also changed ink of the tonner, but to no effect. Then on the say of the O.P.-2 he brought the printer to its shop. It was lying with it from 9/7/2012 to 21/7/2012. On 22/7/2012 he took it back but there was no improvement in the printer. The O.P.-2 then asked him to take it to the authorised service center of the O.P.-1 and get it repaired on his own cost, though it was in warranty period. There was manufacturing defect in the printer and as it could not be repaired, he requested the      O.P.-2 to replace it with new one or refund Rs.14,500/-.               By letter dated- 21/8/2012 he informed the Opposite Parties about manufacturing defect in the printer and further said that it is available in market for Rs. 9000/- to 9800/-, but the O.P.-2 sold it at higher cost and cheated him. Hence he has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the printer with new one of same model and refund excess amount Rs.4700/- or to refund Rs. 14,500/- with 24% interest. He has also claimed compensation and cost.

03.    O.P.- 1 filed reply and denied the complaint. It is denied that the O.P.-2 is its dealer and therefore it is answerable for the acts of the O.P.-2. The O.P.-2 is answerable to the complainant as the printer was purchased from it. The defects in the printer are also denied. It being a reputed company of electronics goods, it provides prompt service to its customers. Every product comes with warranty period on certain terms and conditions which are applicable to both the parties. Warranty is applicable to those products which are purchased from authorised dealer of it. The O.P.-2 is not its authorised dealer and hence the printer is not covered by warranty. So also warranty is not applicable if the product is altered or modified by unauthorised person. The printer was operated by the O.P.-2 as per the complaint and so there is breach of warranty. In spite of that the O.P.-1 provided proper service to him free of cost. When the printer was brought to authorised service center of it, alleged problem was removed to his satisfaction. Denying allegations of deficiency in service it is urged to dismiss the complaint.

04.    O.P.-2  failed to file reply and therefore the complaint is heard without his reply.

05.    Heard Ld counsels for the complainant and the O.P.-1. Perused documents and notes of arguments. On considering the same we record our findings and reasons as under.

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

06.    The complainant purchased the printer from O.P.-2, who is said to be authorised dealer of O.P.-1. But this has been denied by the O.P.-1. The bill given by the O.P.-2 does not reflect that it is an authorised dealer of Samsung products of O.P.-1. It is also a fact that the printer was repaired by the O.P.-2 on 2-3 occasions and then for 12 days it was lying with the O.P.-2.  As per the clauses of warranty, the warranty will not be applicable if the product is not purchased from an authorised Samsung dealer, and if any modifications or alterations of any nature is made in the set by the purchaser or unauthorised person. It is thus contended by the counsel for the O.P.-1 that as the printer was not purchased from an authorised dealer and it was then tried to be repaired by an unauthorised person, there is breach of warranty clause. Therefore the O.P.-1 cannot be held liable to replace it with new one.     

07.    As stated before, the point is whether the O.P.-2  is an authorised dealer of Samsung products. The complainant has placed on record warranty registration card which is of Samsung company. If the O.P.-2 is not authorised dealer of O.P.-1 it could not have given warranty card of Samsung Company. It is not the case of O.P.-1 that the O.P.-2  unlawfully procured the warranty card; nor any action seems to have been taken against O.P.-2 for giving warranty on Samsung products, though it is not an authorised dealer. Therefore we have to accept the complainantś claim that O.P.-2 is an authorised dealer of Samsung products. Therefore there is no breach of warranty clause on handling the printer by the O.P.-2.

08.    It is not in dispute that there was some defect in the printer as it was tried to be repaired by O.P.-2 on 2-3 occasions and later it was sent to service center of Samsung company for repair. The defects occurred within a short time from purchase and during warranty period. Therefore both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss.

09.    The complainant has further said the same model is available at less price at other place and O.P.-2 obtained more amount from him. He therefore prayed that excess amount be refunded to him by the O.P.-2 . However, there is no such evidence in support of it. Hence, we do not accept this prayer.

10.  The complaint is therefore deserved to be allowed. Hence, the order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed against O.P.No.-1 & 2 jointly & severally.
2.  Both the Opposite Parties are directed to repair the printer in question to the satisfaction of the complainant or replace it with new printer of same model, or in the alternative, refund the price of the printer i.e. Rs. 14,500/- (In words Rupees Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Only)  with 6% p.a. interest from the date of complaint  to the complainant.
3. Both the Opposite Parties shall also pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- (In words Rupees Five Thousand only)  to the complainant for mental agony and litigation cost Rs.2000/-(In words Rupees Two Thousand only).
4. Order shall be complied by both the Opposite Parties within 30 days from receipt of order copy.
5. Copy   of order   shall   be given to   both the

     parties  free of cost.