Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/190/2016

T.Natarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager M/s.Soundry Computer System (P) LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.11.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.01.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 09^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.190/2016

 

 

T.Natarajan,

22/9, Manali New Town,

Chennai – 600 103.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

M/s. “SOUNDRY COMPUTER SYSTEMS (HP WORLD)”

AI-41, Block # 104E, 4^th Avenue,

Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.12.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s. V.Manisekaran, D.Gunasekaran,

                                                                     S.Lakshmi

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to replace the defective printer with laser printer and also to pay the cost of the defective printer with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a “HP SYSTEM’ Model No. HP A10 20-RO1 1IL PC (M1Q78AAACJ) for Rs.34,857.14/- and a “PRINTER”, Model No.HP DJA 10 PRINTER – 2545 (A9U 23238# ACJ) for Rs.5428.57/- and installed on 05.09.2015 with 1 year warranty. Right from the date of installation, the Inkjet Printer gave endless trouble frequently. The complainant as an advocate requires only legal size copying printer. This fact was also informed at the time of purchase.  The opposite parties said that it is not possible in practice that legal size papers are not taken Xerox copies.

 2. The complainant made a complaint about the printing of the descending order page numbers as 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and finally as No.1. An engineer from the opposite party came on 05.02.2016 and rectified the same. Even after that the prints are coming out in a descending order.  The complainant sent notice on 28.09.2015 setting out the above defects and to replace the defective printer. Further the opposite party had not provided the CD and the manual at the time of installation. Since manufacturing defect continues and the opposite party also not rectified inspite of his request, he made a complaint to police on 28.01.2016 and sent another notice on 26.09.2016 to the opposite party. Even after that the opposite party had not rectified the printer or replaced with new laser jet 1020 plus printer. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the defective printer with laser jet printer and also to pay the cost of the defective printer with cost of the complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainant purchased HP system, printer DJ A10 and UPS APC 600 VA line interactive UPS on 05.09.2015. After purchase the opposite party installed the system, printer and demonstrated the operation to the complainant. The complainant is not well versed with the system operation and hence frequently called the opposite party and he had also sent his technicians then and there and explained to the complainant about the operation of the system and computer. Inspite of that the complainant could not understand the operations of the system and printer.

          4. On 10.10.0215 the complainant lodged a complaint and immediately the opposite party technician went there and found that there were no problem with system and printer. It was only the setting in the system was not properly done for printing  and legal size printing operation were not chosen and after changing the set up  in the system, instructions  were given to the complainant to operate accordingly and in this respect complainant also signed the field service report. On the complaint again on 24.10.2015 the technician visited the complainant and found that the printer setting was not properly done and once again found on 25.01.2016 that there was need to change a cartridge for printer.  The complainant signed in the field survey report prepared for the above defects.

          5. The complainant once again lodged a complaint on 04.02.2016 that the printer is not working. The technician visited and found that the printer was uninstalled and once again he reinstalled the printer and obtained complainant signature in the service report. The opposite party technician after checking, changed the setting system and made the printer to print in the ascending order. The complainant keep on saying that there was manufacturing defect in the printer and he wants replacement of the printer with new laser jet printer. Absolutely there was no manufacturing defect in the product, it is the complainant who do not know the operation of the product and that is why some problem were arose and that was also rectified then and there. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased HP system for a sum of Rs.34,857.14/-, Hp printer DJ A10 for a sum of Rs.5,428.57/- and line interactive UPS for a sum of Rs.2,380.95/- from the opposite party on 5.09.2015 under ExA1 & B1 and the said system was installed at the complainant residence on the same day and the product was having 1 year warranty and thereafter the complainant made many complaints to the opposite party and the same were attended by the opposite party then and there through ExB3 to B6.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite party are that right from the date of purchase the inkjet printer is not working and he was unable to take Xerox copies with legal size papers and the printing copies of pages coming out from the printer in the descending order as 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and finally as No.1 and such a printing is a defect in the product and hence the printer is having manufacturing defect and therefore he sought replacement of laser printer by issuing ExA2 and A4 notices and the opposite party failed to concede his request and thereby the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          9. The opposite party filed ExB3 to B6 for having attended the complaint of the complainant and after service the complainant also signed in those documents. The specific case of the opposite party in the written version is that on 10.10.2015 his technician found that there were no problem in the printer and he found that only the setting in the system was not properly made for printing and he had also changed the setup and the said rectification was recorded in ExB3. On 24.10.2015 the technician attended the paper setting problem  in the printer  and after rectification he raised ExB4 service report for the same. On 25.01.2016 as stated in ExB5 new cartridge was changed and made the printer was working. In the complaint on 04.02.2016 the technician done the software reinstallation in the system and made the printer was working. All the above defects arose due to improper usage and rectification was done by the technician in the software. No evidence forthcoming on behalf the complainant that he is conversant with that of the usage of the printer software. In such circumstances other than the complainant, an expert evidence is necessary to prove that the printer is having manufacturing defect. Absolutely there is no evidence produced by the complainant to accept that the printer purchased by him was having manufacturing defect. Hence in view of such conclusion, we hold that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.      

 

 

  

10. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 05.09.2015                   Copy of Cash Bill

Ex.A2 dated 19.01.2016                   Request Lr. to opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 28.01.2016                   Lr. to K-4 Police Stn.

Ex.A4 dated 26.09.2016                   IInd ‘Private Notice’

Ex.A5 dated 27.09.2016                   Ack. Rec. from opposite party 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 05.09.2015                   Invoice

 

Ex.B2 dated 05.09.2015                   Field Service Report

 

Ex.B3 dated 10.10.2015                   Field service Report

 

Ex.B4 dated 24.10.2015                   Field service Report

 

Ex.B5 dated 25.01.2016                   Field service Report

 

Ex.B6 dated 04.02.2016                   Field service Report

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT