BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Saturns International Printing Division, SCF No.89, Top Floor, Ph-VII, Mohali through its C.E.O. Mr. K.S. Bedi.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Tech First Solution, S.C.O. No.84-85, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2.      Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., A-200, First Floor, Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-I, New Delhi.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Mukand Gupta, Adv. for OP-1

Sh. Gagan Oberoi, Adv. proxy for Sh.Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for OP-2

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant which was running the business of printing, advertising, publicity, branding, interior and exterior designing, in order to increase the quality and efficiency of printing purchased one HP Design jet 8000 printer from OP-1 on 16.4.2009 for Rs.6,96,000/- out of which Rs.90,000/- was paid in advance and a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/-. In addition, four post dated cheques for Rs.62,225/- each were also given.  After one month the complainant noticed that there was some problem in the printer which was brought to the notice of OPs but they did not bother to rectify the same despite many requests.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 submitted that the complainant is running a commercial business and, therefore, is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It has been denied that the payment towards cost of the printer has been made by the complainant and rather each of his four post dated cheques of Rs.64,225/- bounced and thereafter he was asked to replace the same and still the fourth PDC of Rs.64,225/- dated 12.8.2009 has not been enchased.  It has been vehemently denied that till the filing of the present consumer complaint any complaint with regard to the alleged problem was received.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their separate written reply OP-2 also pleaded that the complainant is running a commercial business and, therefore, is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The receipt of complaints from the complainant on 24.8.2009, 10.9.2009, 6.10.2009, 15.10.2009, 20.10.2009, 3.12.2009, 23.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 regarding various defects have been admitted but it has been submitted that most of them were resolved by replacing and servicing the unit to the satisfaction of the complainant. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.     

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             It is mentioned in para number 2 of the complaint that he is running the business of printing etc. Again in para number 8 and 11 it is mentioned that due to the defect in the machine the complainant was facing loss in his business. The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that since the machine was purchased by a business concern for running the business, it is a commercial transaction and the Consumer Fora is not competent to adjudicate upon the same.  The perusal of the complaint also show that the complainant no where mentioned if the business is being done by him to earn his livelihood.  However in his rejoinder he has mentioned this fact. Though the rejoinder cannot be taken to amend or override the complaint, yet we feel inclined to accept his contention.  Ordinarily such like pleas should have been taken in the complaint so that the OP has an opportunity to admit or deny the same.  We however accept the contention of the complainant that he was running this commercial business to earn his livelihood and the complaint cannot be said to be outside the purview of the Consumer Fora.

7.             The contention of the complainant further is that the machine went out of order regarding which a complaint was made to OP-2 but nobody had, till the filing of the complaint, come to his premises to rectify the problem.  This contention is falsified from his own email dated 31.08.2009 now marked as Annexure C-3 in which it was admitted by the complainant that after one week a person was sent to attend his complaint but he was knowing nothing about the machine.  The OP has also produced Annexure R-3 which is the complaint lodged by it, on 25.08.2009 with the police alleging that when they went to attend the problem the engineer was detained by the complainant and was man handled and further he was threatened to be implicated in false case of theft which shows that the complainant is taking law into his own hands and he is indulging in arm-twisting activities.  This conduct by the complainant itself disentitles him to the relief claimed by him.

8.             Apart from the complaint dated 24.08.2009 the complainant has not mentioned if there was any other problem in the machine or if any other complaint was lodged by him with the OPs. When the OPs contended that there was no problem in the machine the complainant filed the rejoinder and produced Annexure C-4 dated 17.04.2009, Annexure C-5 dated 4.09.2009 and Annexure C-6 dated 15.09.2009 alleging that there were several other problems also.  The complainant did not take any permission to adduce additional evidences nor these documents Annexure C-4 to C-6 were mentioned in the complaint, so as to give an opportunity to the OPs to submit a reply.  However we are of the opinion that these job sheets do not prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             The machine was purchased on 16.04.2009 and was installed on 17.04.2009 vide Annexure C-4.  In Annexure C-4 it is mentioned that it was a new installation, operator training was given and the machine was working O.K.  Annexure C-4 does not prove any defect in machine.  Then comes Annexure C-5 dated 4.09.2009 on that date the banding was reported and engineer changed the printing head, ink was changed and he was to visit again.  The problem of media touching with PH was removed vide Annexure C-6.  The OPs in their reply have admitted that when ever the problem was reported it was immediately resolved, the part which was creating problem was replaced and the problems were rectified.  As regards Annexure C-7 to C-12, these relate to the period after institution of the present complaint. All these complaints were also attended to properly and the defects were removed.  It therefore cannot be said if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10.           The documents Annexure C-4 to C-12 clearly prove that the machine was in working condition. If the contention of the complainant is believed that the machine is not working and no engineer from the OPs had visited his premises to rectify the defects, there was no occasion for the complainant to lodge these complaints. Annexure C-4 to C-12 therefore suggest that the complainant had encountered these problems while working with machine.  His contention that the machine is not working is therefore falsified from these documents also.

11.           The contention of the OP is that there is inbuilt software in the machine which reflects the work done by it.  It is mentioned in para number 5 of the reply that the complainant has already consumed 22987 ml of ink and more than 4754 feet of material has already been printed within short period of seven months. There is no dispute about it that the complainant is running his business with the help of this machine.  His contention that the machine is out of order or has not been repaired by the OPs therefore cannot be believed because after every complaint lodged by him it was attended to by the OPs and only then he could extensively use the machine to consumer 22987 ml of ink and to print 4754 feet of material.

12.           It therefore show that the complainant is an unreliable person and has concocted a false story of deficiency in service and filed the present complaint due to extraneous reasons.

13.           He has also told lies when he mentioned in para number 3 of the complaint that the payment was made by him as per the written terms and conditions. He has also mentioned in para number 6 of the complaint that all the amount payable by him as been cleared and only Rs.64,225/- was left to be paid by him. The facts however show otherwise.  According to the complainant they agreed to accept the payment in installments regarding which post dated cheques were issued by the complainant as per the agreement Annexure C-2.  The cheque of Rs.64,225/- dated 12.05.2009 was dishonored for want of sufficient funds and the second cheque dated 12.06.2009 was replaced by the complainant and the third cheque dated 12.07.2009 was also dishonored for want of sufficient funds.  The last cheque dated 12.08.2009 has not been cleared so far.  The complainant then issued two cheques one for Rs.34,225/- dated 30.08.2009 and the other for Rs.30,000/- dated 4.09.2009 but both these cheques again bounced on account of insufficient funds and have not been enchased  so far.  In this manner the payment which was to be cleared by 12.08.2009 has not been cleared by the complainant before filing the present complaint nor has it been paid so far.  The complainant has admitted in para number 3 of this fact that the amount is due from him.

14.           The contention of the OP is that during this period the complainant has purchased ink from OP-1 on 5 occasions but the total amount of Rs.21,476/- is still due from him.  The OP-1 wrote a letter Annexure R-1 to the complainant to pay the amount but even inspite of that it has not been paid. On the other hand he has complained that the material is not being supplied to him as if the OPs are under an obligation to supply him the material without payment of the price thereof.  We find merit in the contentions of the OPs that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with an ulterior motive to avoid the payment of aforesaid amount and to get compensation from this Forum to set off the said payment.  The complainant is therefore a dishonest person; he has not come to the Forum with clean hands, he has concealed the material facts regarding the dishonoring of the cheques and non payment of the ink charges, he is therefore not entitled to the relief claimed by him.

15.           The machine is still under warranty.  If the complainant needs the services, he shall pay to the OPs the amount of Rs.64,225/- and Rs.21,476/- which is due from him and only thereafter the services would be rendered to him

16.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed with costs.  The complainant is directed to pay s Rs.5000/-to the OP, towards the litigation charges.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                                                           Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                 Sd/-12.03.2010