Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/89/2014

Mr. Syed Suheel Bandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor Sri Raghavendra Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 27/10/2014

     DISPOSED ON: 23/09/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 89/2014 DATED:  23rd September 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

COMPLAINANT

Mr. Syed Suheel Bandi Fact Finders, # 25A, Fatima Manzil, Opp: Noorani Masjid, Near Railway Station, Chitradurga – 577501.                (Party in person)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Proprietor, Sri Raghavendra Computers,     Opp: Union Park, P.B. Road,     Near KSRTC Bus Stop, Chitradurga. 2. The Proprietor, Esskay Technology,     St.Paul Convent Road, P.J. Extension,     Davanagere. 3. The Managing Director,     Cannon India Pvt. Ltd., II Floor, Bridge Towers     No.135/5, Brigade Road, Bangalore-560025.   (OP-1 in person, OP-2 ex-parte, OP-3 Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao,  Advocate)

 

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

        The Complainant has  filed a complaint U.Sec. 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the Opposite parties (In short OPs) to pay Rs.80,000/- and other reliefs as the Hon’ble authority deems fit to grant.

2.     The case of the Complainant, in brief, is as under:

        The Complainant is one of the very old client of Canon products like Camera and Printers, recently he had purchased other manufacturer printer, the same was working well, but the same was being loyal customer to Canon, and hence the complainant had purchased Canon MP-287 Printer on receipt of confirmation from Canon Sales team and on purchase they will  provide warranty to the said printer excluding ink tank set-up.   But the said printer was not picking up the papers, hence he requested the OP No.1 to rectify the problem, since the said printer was under warranty, the OP No.1 logged complaint on 27.03.2014 with Canon servicing team, but after 20 days the OP No.2 has asked the complainant to bring the printer to their place instead of giving promised door step service, with lots of pain and making free from his busy schedule the complainant handed over the said Printer to the OP No.2 on 24.04.2014. On inspecting, the service representative informed to the complainant that, no damages are covered under warranty as the said printer attached with Ink set-up box and demanded for Rs.800/- with the complainant to proceed with repairs, thereby the Canon company officials have broken their promise, hence he enquired with Cannon company on 31.05.2014, but they have not completed their calls to analyze customer queries,  later also the complainant requested the OPs through several  mails  on 04.05.2014, 05.05.2015, 09.05.2014, 13.05.2014 and 16.05.2014, but the complainant not get any satisfactory answer.   In the meanwhile, the complainant visited  2 more instances in his car with 2^nd OP service centre to get back good condition to his printer, but he secured his printer after 58 days only, during that period he lost his valuable time and sustained financial loss, and further he suffered with stress, mental tension and it made him reducing his work productivity.  The complainant accepted his printer on 26.05.2014 after payment of Rs.800/- to canon service centre, later when he get the printouts noticed that, the quality has deteriorated and printouts are of no use.   Later  the OP No.1 informed the complainant since 2 months kept open the cartridge, the same become weak resulted in drying of ink inside the cartridge,  for replacement of the said cartridges the OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.2,500/-  excluding other service charges from the complainant.   Later  the complainant was humble and pleaded for justice with Canon team on 03.06.2014 and on 04.06.2014 through mail, but the OP No.3 has not considered and responded his requests.   In this regard the complainant also got issued legal notices to the OPs, the same were duly served on them, but the OPs have not yet compensated and thereby the OPs have shown deficiency in service and thus, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.80,000/- to the complainant.

 

3.     After service of notices, the OPs  No.1 and 3, have entered appearance and resisted the complaint by filing their version by denying the contents of the complaint, the contents of the OPs No.1 and 3 in brief may be stated as under:

 

        4.     The OP No.1 has admitted about selling the printer to the complainant. Further he contended that, he had sold only printer, it doesn’t include ink tank or any external fittings, the complainant himself purchase the product at his own risk fitted with extract ink tank set-up, the same is amounts to Physical damage of the product, hence the same is badly affected, hence the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant.   Hence, the OPs have sought for dismissal of the complaint.   

5.     Further the OP No.3 also denied the entire contention taken by the complainant in his complaint through its GPA Holder Ms. Pooja Chhikara as per GPA Dated: 15.07.2014 to conduct the case.  He contended that, they have engaged the business of trade and marketing of IT and Electronic items under the brand name of CANON, and it holds a reputed position in the field of IT and electronics Products.   Further he contended that the OP No.1 is not the authorized dealer of OP No.3,  hence the liability shall transfer on the shoulder of OP No.1, further he contended that the complainant had used the Ink tank belongs to other company  which had resulted to the defect in the printer, hence the rendering warranty is void, further the OP No.3 stated that the delay for service is only on the part of complainant, since he has not approved for the repair estimate nor he did not take back the printer from the servicing centre,  during this intervening period the said ink was dried up.   Further he stated that, there is absolutely no problem with the printer and the problem arised only by using third party ink jet. Hence, the OP No.3 has  sought for dismissal of the complaint

 

6.     In support of their claim, the complainant and OPs have filed their respective affidavits and written arguments and they have also produced the documents in support of their respective case.

7.     The Points that arise for our consideration are as under :

        1)     Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of

                Service of OPs ?

        2)     If yes, whether the complainant is entitled for the

                relief  as sought for ?

        3)     What order ?

 

8.     My findings on the above points are as under :

        Point No.1       :       In the partly affirmative.

        Point No.2       :       The complainant is entitled

                                         to Rs.20,000/-.

 

        Point No.3       :       As per order.

 

REASONS

 

9.     At the very outset,  it is mentioned that there is no dispute with regard to the complainant purchased the  Canon make printer from OP No.1 manufactured by OP-3 and on purchase of the same, they will  provide warranty to the said printer excluding ink tank set-up.   But the said printer was not picking up the papers, hence he requested the OP No.1 to rectify the problem, since the said printer was under warranty, the OP No.1 logged complaint on 27.03.2014 with Canon servicing team and  after 20 days the OP No.2 has asked the complainant to bring the printer to their place instead of giving promised door step service. With lots of pain and making free from his busy schedule the complainant handed over the said Printer to the OP No.2 on 24.04.2014. On inspecting, the service representative informed to the complainant that, no damages are covered under warranty as the said printer attached with Ink set-up box and demanded for Rs.800/- with the complainant to proceed with repairs, thereby the Canon company officials have broken their promise. Hence, he enquired with Cannon company on 31.05.2014, but they have not completed their calls to analyze customer queries.  Later the complainant requested the OPs through several  mails  on 04.05.2014, 05.05.2015, 09.05.2014, 13.05.2014 and 16.05.2014. But the complainant not get any satisfactory answer.   In the meanwhile, the complainant visited  2 more instances in his car with 2^nd OP service centre to get back his printer with good condition. But he secured his printer after 58 days only, during that period he lost his valuable time and sustained financial loss. Further he suffered with stress, mental tension and it made him to reduce his work productivity.  The complainant accepted his printer on 26.05.2014 after payment of Rs.800/- to canon service centre. Later when he get the printouts he noticed that, the quality has deteriorated and printouts are of no use.   Later  the OP No.1 informed the complainant that, for two months the cartridge was kept open and the same became weak which resulted in drying of ink inside the cartridge.  For replacement of the said cartridges the OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.2,500/-  excluding other service charges from the complainant.   Later  the complainant was humble and pleaded for justice with Canon team on 03.06.2014 and on 04.06.2014 through mail.   But the OP No.3 has not considered and responded his requests, in this regard the complainant also got issued legal notices to the OPs, the same were duly served on them, but the OPs have not yet compensated, the OPs have shown deficiency in service and thus, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.80,000/- to the complainant.  To evidence the same,  RPAD receipts and acknowledgments are marked as Ex.A-1, Legal notices to the OPs, which is marked as Ex.A-2, the complainant has produced the  repair charge invoice dated: 29.05.2014 which is marked as Ex.A-3,  Tax Invoice dated: 24.12.2013 which is marked as Ex-A-4 and Customer Technical enquiry dated: 08.05.2014 which is marked as Ex.A-5,  the documents produced by the complainant are proved by the complainant and there is no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant.

10.   It is the case of the OPs No.1 and 3 that, OP No.1  had sold only printer, it doesn’t include ink tank or any external fittings, the complainant himself purchased the product at his own risk fitted with extract ink tank set-up, the same amounts to Physical damage of the product, hence the same is badly affected.  OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant.   The OPs have sought for dismissal of the complaint.    Further the OP No.3 also denied the entire contention of the complainant through its GPA Holder Ms. Pooja Chhikara as per GPA Dated: 15.07.2014 to conduct the case.  It is contended that, they have engaged the business of trade and marketing of IT and Electronic items under the brand name of CANON, it holds a reputed position if the field of IT and electronics Products.   Further he contended that the OP No.3 is not the authorized dealer of OP No.3,  hence the liability shall transfer on the shoulder of OP No.1.  It is contended that the complainant had used the Ink tank belongs to other company  which had resulted to the defect in the printer.  Hence the rendering warranty is void, further the OP No.3 stated that the delay for service is only on the part of complainant,  since he has not approved for the repair estimate nor he did not take back the printer from the servicing centre.  During this intervening period the said ink was dried up and stated that, there is absolutely no problem with the printer and the problem arised only by using third party ink jet.  Hence, the OP No.3 has  sought for dismissal of the complaint.   This contention cannot be believed, because the OPs have not substantiated the said contention by documentary evidence as the complainant had used low quality Ink jet, the same is not fitted to the said Canon company.   Except filing their affidavit of their version, they have not produced any other documents in support of their contention.   Thus, we decline to accept the contention of the OPs.   Therefore, we answer Point No.1 partly affirmative.

 

11.   Point No.2:-    In view of the above discussion, it is very clear that the complainant has suffered a lot by the deficiency of service by the OPs, with regard to award of compensation and in the complaint the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/-.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.2.

12.   Point No.3:-  For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is hereby partly allowed.   We hereby award Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation to the complainant.   The OPs are directed to pay the above compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint  i.e., 27.03.2014 till realization, apart from Rs. 5,000/- towards general damages.  

Further, the OPs  directed to pay the above amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.  

The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards costs.

 

(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 23/09/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

-Nil-

On behalf of OPs Sri. M.J. Raghavendra, Proprietor of OP 1 and one Ms. Pooja Chikkara filing affidavit evidence taken as DW-1 & DW-2:

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	RPAD receipts and acknowledgments
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal notices to the OPs
03	Ex-A-3:	Repair charge invoice dated: 29.05.2014
04	Ex-A-4:	Tax Invoice dated: 24.12.2013
05	Ex-A-5:	Customer Technical enquiry dated: 08.05.2014

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

 

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Rhr.