..…Complainant
Versus
- Sysnet Global technologies Pvt. Ltd., Nobel Enclave 5th Floor, Opp. Hotel Park Plaza, Bhaiwala Chowk, Ludhiana-141001 Through its Manager.
- Secant Technologies, Regd. Office: 2652/1, Aarti Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001, Through its Manager.
- HP Computing and Printing Systems India Private Ltd., 2F, Tower D&E Building No.2, DLF, Cybergreen Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana, Importer and Supplier to Dealers. …..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill, Advocate.
For OP1 : Sh. Rajender Sharma, Advocate.
For OP2 : Exparte.
For OP3 : Sh. Sumit Jain, Advocate for OP3.
ORDER
PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 18.12.2018, the complainant purchased a Laser Printer from OP2 for Rs.25,000/- for his personal work. However, the printer was not working properly and it stopped working and he gave the same for repair to OP2 on 11.01.2021 but the printer was not repaired even after about two months. The complainant stated that on asking about the delay, OP1 told him to send Rs.9954.48 which the complainant sent on 16.02.2021 to OP1 but neither OP1 repaired the printer nor gave any reply to the complainant. In the month of March 2021, OP2 sent an Email that they are ready to exchange the printer with 15% discount but the complainant refused to the said offer. According to the complainant, OP1 and OP2 have not repaired the printer despite receipt of Rs.9954/- as repair charges nor they have changed the printer. The complainant requested the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1,06,954/-, the price of laser printer and to repay the amount of Rs.9954/- received as repair charges but to no effect. The complainant claimed to have suffered loss due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which he is entitled for compensation. The complainant served a legal notice dated 03.09.2021 upon the OPs but to no effect. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs.9954/- repair charges, price of laser printer Rs.25,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
2. Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant being not come to this Commission with clean hands; suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action etc. OP1 stated that the complainant purchased the printer in the year 2018 and warrantee of said printer was up to 1 year. In January 2021, the complainant approached OP1 for repairing the printer and OP1 after inspecting the printer told him that the said printer is out of warranty. OP1 made quotation dated 16.02.2021 regarding charges of repair of the printer, which the complainant deposited but some parts were not available with the company due to which OP1 directed the complainant either to take back the printer otherwise they are ready to exchange the printer with 15% discount, to which the complainant refused and did not take back the printer. OP1 further stated that the complainant has been filed to extract money.
On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service and as such, OP2 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.08.2022.
4. OP3 filed separate written statement and by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; the complaint being abuse of process of law; suppression of material facts etc. OP3 stated that it is manufacturer of various products like laptops, printers, computers, scanner and other IT peripheral components of best class and quality. It is well supported by excellent authorized channel partner and service centers and has well qualified and experienced personnel. OP3 further stated that the complainant purchased the printer on 18.12.2018 and as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the warranty of hardware is for one year, valid till 17.12.2019. The complainant gave the printer for repair on 11.01.2021 and at that time the warranty had already elapsed due to which OP3 is not liable for any relief so claimed by the complainant. OP3 further stated that the spare parts of the printer required to be changed was for Rs.9954/- but the spare parts were not available with the manufacturer as ordered by OP1 and as such, OP1 requested the complainant that the spare part of the printer is not available so the printer cannot be repaired and requested to take back his money but the complainant refused to take back his money and remained adamant to repair the printer. Even the complainant was offered to buy new printer on discount of 25% but he did not adhere to the same and kept on asking for repair of the printer.
On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Service Call Report dated 11.01.2021, Ex. C2 is the copy of tax invoice dated 28.08.2020, Ex. C3 is the copy of quotation dated 16.02.2021, Ex. C4 is the copy of transaction details, Ex. C5 is the copy of invoice dated 18.12.2018 issued by OP2, Ex. C6 to Ex. C10 are the copies of Emails, Ex. C11 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.09.2021 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA1 of Sh. Anil Kumar, Manager and Authorized person of OP1 and closed the evidence.
The counsel for OP3 tendered document Ex. R1 is the copy of Warranty and Support Guide and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant as well as written statements, affidavit and documents produced by OP1 and OP3.
8. Indisputably, the complainant purchased Laser Printer from OP2 for Rs.25,000/- vide invoice dated 18.12.2018 Ex. C5. OP3 is the manufacturer of the printer whereas OP1 is the service center and OP2 is the dealer of OP3. The said printer stopped working and it was given to OP2 for repair on 11.01.2021 who issued a Service Call Report dated 11.01.2021 Ex. C1 by mentioning “Printing issue. Need to Check.” After checking, on asking of OP2, the complainant deposited Rs.9954/- as raised vide quotation Ex. C3 for replacement of Intermediate Trans. Belt Assy. Of Rs.7686/- and service charge of Rs.750/-. OP2 sent an Email 29.03.2021 Ex. C8 to the complainant, offering him 15% discount on new purchase and further vide Email dated 30.09.2021 Ex. C7, the complainant was offered to provide a further 10% discount. However, vide Email dated 29.03.2021 Ex. C7, the complainant refused to accept the said offer of the OPs. OP2 told the complainant vide Email Ex. C7 that the unit is out of warranty so the request of the complainant to repair the printer cannot be fulfilled due to non-availability of spare parts with the manufacturer and this fact has been admitted by OP1 in its written statement. It is the settled law that whenever a brand new product is sold to the customer, there is an implied contract carrying a warranty that the product being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.
9. The printer in question was handed over to OP1 for its repair through Service Call Report dated 11.01.2021 and since then the same is lying with OP1 service center due to unavailability of spare parts. The complainant was compelled to purchase a new printer of Brother company for Rs.34,970/- vide invoice dated 28.08.2020 for his usage to avoid any further inconvenience. It is evident in the case in hand that the printer is not in repairable condition as admitted by the OPs in Emails as well as written statements. Even the legal notice dated 03.09.2021 served by the complainant upon the Ops did not yield any fruitful results and the OPs failed to hand over the printer to the complainant after repair to the due satisfaction of the complainant and as such, the complainant has right to file the present complaint. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs, are directed to refund the depreciated value of Rs.15,000/- of the printer from the billed amount of Rs.25,000/- as per Ex. C5 as well as to refund Rs.9954/- received by OP2 for repair and replacement of spare parts of the printer as well as to pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
10. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs jointly and severally shall refund the depreciated value of Rs.15,000/- of the printer from the billed amount of Rs.25,000/- as per Ex. C5 as well as to refund Rs.9954/- received by OP2 for repair and replacement of spare parts of the printer to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. The compliance of the order be made within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
11. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra) Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:17.07.2024.
Gobind Ram.
