Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/15/2014

C.Srinivasulu, S/o. C.Vengaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Gopikrishna Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

S.D.Hussain and S.Naseema

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                    Filing Date:-18-03-2014                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date:-10-02-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                      SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

                                         TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.15/2014

Between

 C. Srinivasulu, S/o. Vengaiah,

 Hindu, aged 42 years, Door No. 5-209

 M.R.Palli, Tirupathi town, post and mandal

 Chittoor District.                                                                       

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

i) The Proprietor, Gopikrishna Electronics

 Samsung Authorized Service Centre,

Having its office at Door No. 20-3-25/A8                                         

Tirumala Bye-Pass Road, Tirupathi town, Post

And Mandal,  Chittoor District.

 

ii) Samsung India Electronics Private Limited

Corporate Office at 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th floor

Vipul Tech Square Tower C, Golf Course Road

Sector 43, Gurgov, Haryana.

 .                                                                                                       …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 26.01.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  Sri S.D.Hussain, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.P. Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and K. Suresh, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for not providing proper services to the Laser Printing Machine.

 

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant who is running Mee-Seva Centre, a franchise of A.P. Government Online Services, purchased a Samsung Laser printer No. SCX-4321 3 in 1 printer S. No. 8R67BJEC3000XFV from Op No.1on 21-05-2012 for the cost of Rs.10, 500/- vide cash bill No.3365. After using the said machine for three to four months the said unit got some technical problems like paper jamming, not receiving the paper inside and so on. So he complained the same to the customer care centre and the technician of opposite party No.1attended for the service and rectified the problem for some extent but the entire problem was not rectified. Hence he asked them to replace the new unit in the place of old printing machine. But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to do the same till today, hence because of the inaction of the opposite parties he suffered a lot for day to day Mee-Seva services and again the complainant on 26-10-2014 he approached the opposite party No.1 and handed over the said printer to them for conducting repair. But till today the opposite party has not taken any steps to repair the same. Hence he faced so many problems for day to day works in the Mee-Seva. Finally he issued a legal notice on 22-02-2014 calling upon the opposite parties to repair the said unit, but after the receipt of the said notice also they failed to do the same. Hence he filed the present complaint by praying the hon’ble forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 70.000/- towards damages and pass such other orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

           3. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written versions separately. The opposite party NO.1 filed the written version by denying the contentions of the complainant alleged in the complaint and stated that the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 on 26-10-2013 with regard to the problem of the laser printer i.e. after the expiry of warranty period, their technician checked and rectified the problem. But the complainant failed to take back the printer after repairs made by them hence they issued reply notice on 22-3-2014 to call upon the complainant to take back the printer. After receipt of the said notice also the complainant was not turn-up. Again on the day of first hearing i.e. on 16-5-2014 they produced the laser printer before this hon’ble  Forum to deliver the printer to the complainant, but he refused to take back the printer,as there are no latches on part of them.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

          4. The 2^nd opposite party filed the written version and stated that this complaint itself is not maintainable because he purchased the printer for commercial purpose. It is a settled law at any commercial transaction is not covered under C.P. Act, on this preliminary issue only this complaint is liable to be dismissed. They have stated that for first instance on 18.3.2013 the complaint of the complainant was closed as the printer is in good condition. Subsequently another complaint was lodged on 21.3.2013 which was promptly attended by them and observed that the complainant is used a refilled toner, since  the refilled toner is used by him leads to tampering with the printer un- authorizedly and the warranty becomes void as refilled toner will deteriorate the quality of the printer and informed the same to the customer and adjusted the jam sensor hence the warranty has became void by the usage of the refilled toner, another complaint was lodged on 24-5-2013, the printer having become out of warranty on account of tampering by usage of refilled cartridge and also by virtue of lapse of one year for which the warranty period is provided, the customer was asked to pay the charges for servicing and the customer having refused, the call was cancelled. There after he lodged another complaint on 12-7-2013 which was also for the same reason as above i.e., usage of refilled cartridge.  Hence there is no problem with the printer except that the customer is used refilled cartridge which is impermissible. The complainant first lodged the complaint to opposite Party No.1 on 18-3-2013 after eight months from the date of purchase i.e. on 21-5-2012 which establishes that the printer is in good condition for 8 months, that itself clearly shows that the said printer gave problems within three months after the purchase are all false as contended by the complainant.

 

          5. Hence by improper usage of the printer by the complainant  only the said problem was arised, hence there is no manufacturing  defect in the printer as alleged by the complainant and hence he is not entitled  for any reliefs as prayed for,  hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant first lodged the complaint on 18-3-2013 after eight months from the date of purchase i.e. on 21-5-2012 which establishes that the printer is in good condition for 8 months, that itself clearly shows that the said printer gave problems within three months are all false as contended by the complainant.

 

          6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf of him Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. Opposite party No 1filed his evidence on affidavit on behalf of him Ex. B1 was marked. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2 evidence on affidavit was filed. Both sides filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

 

         On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:-

 

1. Whether the complainant will come under purview of the consumer?

           (ii)      Whether there is any   deficiency of service on part of the opposite   

                       Parties?

          (iii)       Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as prayed for?

          (iv)        To what result?

 

          7. Point No:-(i). Whether the complainants will come under the purview of the         consumer?

          The main contention of the complainant is that he purchased a Laser Printer Machine for the purpose of running mee-seva services (A franchise of A.P.Govt. Online) the services include, issuing of ration card, birth certificates, nativity certificates, income certificates, and certified copies of the registered documents, ECs, adangals. After verifying the features and specifications of the said printing machine he opted the above printer in view that this printer can satisfy the needs of the daily operations as mentioned above. Soon after the purchase within three to four months the printer got some technical problems like paper jamming and paper not taking dual side and not taking scan printouts automatically and so on. Hence due to the defective machine he faced a lot of inconvenience for his daily services in mee-seva to issue the certificates. Hence he approached OP.No.1 to repair the printing machine   but the opposite party no 1 caused inordinate delay to do the services, due to inaction of the opposite parties in time and fails to rectify the defect till the date of filing the present complaint.

                                                                                                                            

          The purpose of the purchase of the printing machine is for running mee-seva service centre by the complainant as a mee-seva service agent.  He purchased the said machine to generate profits by rendering services to the people who will pay requisite fee, hence the persons availing services for commercial purposes cannot be considered as a’ consumer’ U/Sec.2.(1)(d) of’ C. P. Act. 1986 as the complainant purchased the said machine for ‘commercial purpose’.

         Hence the complainant is not a consumer. Hence this point is answered against the complainant

 

          8.Point:- (ii). The present complaint is filed by the complainant for the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party because the opposite party No.1 fails to do the services properly and also opposite party No.2 sold the defective printing machine to the complainant and also got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The OP.1&2 filed their written versions stating that due to the improper operation and maintenance of the machine by the complainant only  the problem was aroused, and also stated that though they have attended the services and rectified the problem in time, the complainant himself failed to turn up and taken back the printing machine from the custody of the opposite parties and also stated that from the first hearing of the present complaint they are ready to handed over the machine but  the complainant refused to take back the machine. Hence there is no latches on their part after giving the live demo in the Forum the complainant took the delivery of the machine meanwhile the written arguments were filed and oral arguments were heard but the complainant never complained about the performance of the machine at any point of time when the matter is stood for oral arguments.

 

           This itself clearly shows that the said machine is working without interruption, since first point is answered against the complainant that he will not come under the purview of the consumer. It is not appropriate to discuss that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties .Hence it is needless to discuss on the deficiency of service when preliminary issue was already decided as against the complainant. Hence the complainant is advised to seek remedy in proper forum. The complainant therefore is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Hence this point is answered.

 

          9. Point:- (iii).  In view of our discussions in points (i) & (ii) we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore he is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

 

         10. Point:-  (iv).   In the Result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

         Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 10^th day of February, 2015.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                             Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.15/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: Sri C.Srinivasulu S/o.C.Vengaiah (Chief/Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1: M.Ramakrishna S/o. M.Balaramaiah (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Shrinivas Joshi, S/o. Jayant Joshi (Evidence Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Purchase bill bearing No. 3365. Dt: 21.05.2012.
2.	Service Bill (Customer Copy). Dt: 26.10.2013.
3.	Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 along with postal receipts. Dt: 22.02.2014.
4.	Acknowledgement card of Opposite party No.1. Dt: 25.02.2014.

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Reply notice given by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant. Dt: 22.03.2014

 

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

President

                                                          

 

                                               // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

                                                                                                  Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: - 1. The complainant.

                   2. The opposite parties.