Delhi

North East

CC/106/2022

Prem Veer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Timez Care Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 106/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Prem Veer R/o A 94 A, St. No. 3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 94	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	Timez Care Services Pvt. Ltd. P 21, Variman Pointing Ground Floor, New Colony, Gurgaon, Harayana 122001   HP Computing & Printing System India Pvt. Ltd. Crown Plaza Surya, E. F PC, New Delhi 110065	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:      DATE OF ORDER:

04.05.22 06.11.24 03.12.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that Complainant purchased a HP Laser Jet Pro M403 Printer on 17.04.19 and warranty of said printer already expired after one year i.e. 16.04.20. Thereafter Complainant was facing problem in said printer one software and other hardware. Complainant contacted HP regarding said problems and technical team solved software problem and for hardware problem executive told that hardware problem was chargeable. Thereafter Complainant asked HP to purchase any care pack for his said printer and HP executive provided name and contact number of Opposite Party No.1 for purchasing care pack. Complainant  contacted Opposite Party No.1 and purchased a care pack on 07.02.22 for      Rs. 4,250/- and said company issued HP care pack of said printer upto 19.09.22. Thereafter Complainant lodged complaint in HP for resolving problem in said printer vide case ID No. 5082855568 on 28.03.22 but HP refused the complaint stating the reason that Complainant has already got opened said printer from other local engineer so product warranty has expired due to terms and conditions. HP told Complainant that if your want to resolve the problem you have to pay Rs. 11,000/- thereafter product will be repaired and remaining warranty will be continued. Thereafter Complainant told that said product was already out of warranty and he purchased care pack for resolving the problems and if there are any terms and conditions then first inform me about that by you or Timez Care and HP told that you should contact to Timez Care about the matter we could not sort out your problem in this condition. Thereafter Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 about the matter and their executive told that our job was to sale care pack only. For providing services under the pack work of HP if HP does not resolve the  problems then nothing can be done. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for refund of his paid amount with penalty.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 28.03.23.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that Opposite Party No.1 is an authorised dealer of Opposite Party No.2 for selling the extended warranty/care pack. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is the authorised sales partner for care pack and it is not responsible to do any repairs/service. It is stated that the warranty of the printer in question was from 20.09.19 to 19.09.22. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that the Complainant has taken the printer to some local engineer which is against the terms and conditions of the warranty and hence the Complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of warranty. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

 

 Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. It is stated that the Opposite Party did not inform the Complainant regarding terms and conditions of the warranty.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Girish.S, Authorised Signatory of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 has been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. We have perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Admittedly, the Complainant has purchased one printer manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. The said printer was purchased by the Complainant on 17.04.19. The said printer was under warranty till 16.04.20. Thereafter the Complainant purchased extended warranty/care pack in respect of the said printer on 07.02.22 and for this he paid an amount of Rs. 4,250/- to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the tax invoice issued by Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that despite the fact that the printer was under extended warranty, the problem in the printer was not rectified by the Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant has taken the printer to some local engineer which was against the terms and conditions of the extended warranty. However no evidence has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 to substantiate this allegation. Therefore the plea taken by the Opposite Party No.2 cannot be believed.
8.  The Complainant has supported his case by filing his affidavit and documents. The Opposite Party No.1 did not contest the case and the Opposite Party No.2 cannot substantiate its plea.  Therefore, the complaint is allowed and it is held that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
9. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,250/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery to the Complainant which it had received from the Complainant for giving extended warrant/care pack. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed pay  Rs. 15,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.

 

10. Order announced on 03.12.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President