Haryana

Kurukshetra

96/2018

Munsh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swati Computer - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Kumar

21 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 96 of 2018.

Date of instt. 08.05.2018. 

                                                                          Date of Decision: 21.06.2019.

 

Munish Kumar son of Ashok Kumar, resident of Handa Communication, near Jhansa Chungi, Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Swati Computer, shop no.149, Ram Gali, Chhota Bazaar, Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra, through its Prop.

2. Sysnet Global Technology Ltd. SCO No.107, 1^st Floor, Magal Cantt, Karnal, through its Prop.

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

 Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Munish Kumar against Swati Computer and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased a printer of HP Digital marka JT5810 AIO from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.9300/- on 25.12.2017 and op no.1 gave the warrantee of one year of main board of the above said printer. That the main board of the above said printer is not working accurately from the date of purchase of said printer and complainant approached the op no.1 and op no.1 directed the complainant to approach op no.2 i.e. care centre of HP at Karnal. Then service man of op no.2 visited the complainant and gave report about damaging of the main board of above said printer, but later on he gave report about the main board that same has been cut by the rat. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the ops many times for refund of the amount of Rs.9300/- with interest, but the ops refused to pay any heed. That there is great deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppal, suppression of material facts and non joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that op no.1 just sold away the product to the complainant against proper bill and in sealed packing. The warranty of the product is provided by the company i.e. op no.2 and op no.2 is responsible in all respects. In addition to this op no.1 provided best services to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Op no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             From the copy of tax invoice dated 25.12.2017 Ex.C1, it is established on record that complainant purchased the printer in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.9300/- on 25.12.2017. From the copy of service call report dated 21.2.2018 Ex.C2, it is evident that product was within warrantee period and same developed defect within a short period of two months. It is also mentioned in the said report Ex.C2, that main board rat bitten, but the said fact is not supported through any reliable and cogent evidence and it seems that the engineer of the company has mentioned this fact only to avoid their liability to replace the product being defective one. Moreover, the opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturing company has not bothered to appear before this Forum to contest the present complaint rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. The above said report regarding rat bitten is not reliable and trustworthy and the complainant has proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of manufacturing company i.e. op no.2. However, in this case no liability of op no.1 who only sold the product is made out.

8.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.9300/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. We further direct op no.2 to plant one tree in the premises of this Consumer Forum. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 21.06.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.