In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.142/2011.
1) Smt. Dipali Mondal,
2) Sri Suman Mondal,
3) Chandal Mondal,
All of Andul Sarkar Bagan, P.O. Andul-Mouri,
P.S. Sankrail, Dist. Howrah. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Manager,
Hewleft Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
A R C Department (Kolkata)
2, Ripon Street, CMCBuilding, Mazenine Floor,
Kolkata-16, P.S. Park Street. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 23 Dated 30-09-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainants are a small entrepreneur an running their photo studio business viz. ‘Studio Expression and Xerox Machine’. For the aforesaid business one H.P. Cartridge was required and the complainants purchased the said cartridge on 28.9.10, being no.99/138/340/858 for H.P. printer Model No.C 4288 (Sl. No.MY 83 SQP 3 P9) which was described as in description No.C 93697Z from the service centre viz. ‘R.T. OUTSOURCING SERVICES LTD’. situated its office at 2, Ripon Street, Kolkata-16 and the said services authority came to install the said cartridge on 29.9.10 at the complainant’s said business place by the direction of the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the part of cause of action arise on that very date by the o.p. at Argori, Sankrail, Howrah of Ld. Forum.
After demise of one and only earning member of the family the complainant no.1 being the wife and complainant nos.2 and 3 being the unemployed sons suddenly fell in unfortunate situations who had no other alternatives to earn their daily bread or livelihood except running of the said small business.
The said cartridge did not serve any purpose, but on the other hand that the said cartridge being a defective and duplicate one, complainants unable to use the same in his commercial purpose and had to loss of Rs.20,000/- at the price period of his business.
Complainants went to the Customer Care Deptt. and the authorized personnel of the said Deptt. was also admitted that the said cartridge was a duplicate and defective one and the complainants put one written representation in form of complaint to the o.p. no.1 through regd. post with A/D on 4.11.10 at GPO, Howrah, which was returned as remarks ‘Not Claimed’ on 9.11.10 only to avoid the complainants and the said cartridge neither replaced the said defective cartridge nor any contact was done with the complainants and thus a severs misconduct and a gross deficiency in service is well settled ageist the o.p. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. had no deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is not entitled to relief as the case is for commercial purpose vide Para 4 of the petition of complaint.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed against o.p. without cost.
