Sri Kamal De, President

This instant case relates to an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant in short is that he is a citizen of India and is a permanent inhabitant of Vill.- Chapbasan under P.S.-Tamluk. The complainant with a bid to earn livelihood by means of self-employment decided to open a Xerox shop and contacted with the OP for purchase of Xerox machine manufactured by Cannon Co. and for that purpose the complainant gave an amount of Rs.50000/-. Subsequently, after a few months the OP told the complainant that he was unable to supply the Cannon Xerox machine and instead of that the OP approached the complainant to purchase a Xerox machine of HP Co. The complainant, in good faith, agreed to such proposal. OP on 12.02.2014 delivered a HP Laser Jet Pro 300 Colour MPF model no. M375 nw Xerox machine with one year warranty and the OP wrote the warranty period over the Bill but did not deliver any separate warranty card of the Co. OP took money amounting to Rs.59,000/- in part by part. After a few days the Xerox machine became out of order with noise and emission of extra black ink over the Xerox copies. The complainant called the OP and the OP after examination advised to replace the cartridge. The OP thereafter, installed a new cartridge and took a sum of Rs.4567.50/-. But in spite of installation of new cartridge the Xerox machine did not function properly. The OP assured the complainant to repair the machine but to no good. After repeated request for a longtime lastly on 11.07.2014, in absence of the complainant, the OP came with two unknown persons who were representing themselves as mechanics of the HP Co. examined the machine but failed to solve the problem of the machine. The machine is still out of order and the OP, in spite of repeated request, refused to do anything, hence this case.

          OP contested the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is denied that that the complainant contacted the OP for purchase of Cannon Xerox machine and gave an amount of Rs.50000/-. The contents in para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are denied. It is also denied that OP took no step on 09.03.2015 or any other date for repairing the defect of the machine or showed negligent attitude. The case of the OP is that the OP is running a business of information technology product, printing and stationery under the name and style “ENIAC INFOTECH” since 2013. The son of the complainant is running electric business under the name and style “PRATIMA ELECTRIC” in Vill.- Chapbasan under P.S.-Tamluk. The complainant in January 2014 intended to purchase HP Laser Jet Pro 300 Colour MPF model no. M375 nw Xerox machine and gave advance Rs.50,000/- and the OP delivered the machine on 12.02.2014 in sealed packet with warranty of one year in favour of complainant. It is also stated that the total price of machine was settled at Rs.56,325/- though the value of the machine is 57,487/- and the complainant till the date failed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-. The OP also tried to impress upon the complainant that the machine in question has scan and Xerox facilities and it may go out of order if it is used commercially, but the complainant did not pay heed to such words. On 03.06.2014, the OP received complaint from the complainant that the machine has gone out of order. The OP on 11.07.2014 went to the shop of the son of the complainant where the machine was installed to remove the defect. It is also stated by the complainant to the OP that on 30.06.2014 the complainant himself refilled the toner from the outside. It is the case of the OP that the complainant used the Xerox machine commercially and refilled the toner of other company other than the original toner of HP Co. causing such disorder of the machine. It is also stated that the OP is seller of the machine and has no service center and he acted as liaison between the complainant and the service center of the HP Co. for eradication of the problem and dysfunctioning. The complainant is entitled to get remedy, if any, against the service center of the HP Co., but the HP Co. is not impleaded as a party in this case. It is alleged that the case suffers from defect of parties accordingly. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case. 

The crux of the controversy is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? Perused the pleadings of the parties and documents on record. It appears that on 12.02.2014, OP being the proprietor of “ENIAC INFOTECH” sold the machine in question (whether Xerox machine or HP Laser Jet Pro 3200 Printer-Model No. M375nw, whatever it may be) with one year warranty to the complainant and OP also delivered the machine to the complainant. It also appears, that the machine in question went out of order and OP advised the complainant to refill the new cartridge, but to no good. In spite of repeated repairing the machine is found to be inoperative and the OP failed to remove the defects or to repair the same or to restore the machine to useable condition. We are of opinion that the OP supplied a defective machine to the complainant. There is no evidence from the side of the Op that the complainant used the machine for commercial purpose.

It is contended from the side of the OP that the OP did not sell any Xerox machine to the complainant and in fact the OP sold to the complainant a printer machine having facility of scan and Xerox and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for. We are not of consensus of opinion with the argument as advised by the ld. Lawyer appearing from the side of the OP. It appears from the Challan or Bill receipt that OP sold the machine in question whether a Xerox machine or HP Laser Jet Pro 3200 Printer-Model No. M375nw, whatever it may be, to the complainant at a price of Rs.57,487.50/-. It also appears that an amount of Rs.5000/- is lying due to the OP as on 19.05.2014 as we find from the reverse page entry of the money receipt. The fact remains that the OP sold the machine in question to the complainant. The machine subsequently proved to be defective. The OP tried to bring it to order but ultimately failed to remove the defect. In the present circumstances I think that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for, as the OP failed to remove the defects in good or deficiencies in the services in question.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

that the instant case being no CC/35/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges (Rs.51,385/-) paid by the complainant within one month from the date of passing of the order. The OP is also directed to pay 5% of the value of such good to the complainant as compensation alongwith litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the said one month from the date of passing this order. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution in accordance to the appropriate provision of law under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in such case, interest @ 9 percent p.a. shall be imposed upon the total amount payable by the OP, until actually paid.