BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 233 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 20.09.2021.
Date of Decision : 21.03.2024.
Surjeet Kumar son of Puran Chand, resident of village Rasulpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Vinod Kumar Prop. M/s Shivam Printer, M.C. Market, Sirsa. Mobile No. 92531-03645.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinod Goswami, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to OP).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 25.05.2021 complainant had gone to the shop of op for purchasing a new printer but op stated that he is having a printer which has been used only for some days and it is like a new one printer and he will also provide guarantee/ warrantee of the same to him. That upon believing every type of assurances given by op the complainant purchased the Printer of Canon company Model 2010 (Coloured Printer) on 25.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.5700/- which was paid by him through Phone-Pay transaction on his mobile number. That when the complainant used the printer and gave command but the printer did not pick up the command. On complaint made to op, he asked him to bring the printer to his shop and as such printer was brought to the shop of op and he asked that he will hand over the printer to him in OK condition and asked him to come on next day. It is further averred that when on the next day the complainant visited to the shop of printer for taking his printer but the printer was not ready and op asked him to provide five days time. The complainant also asked him to provide the bill and then op also stated that he will also provide the bill alongwith printer. That when after five days the complainant again complainant visited to the op, the op delivered the printer to him but when he started the printer in his house and gave command, the printer was in same position and there was no improvement in the same. That in this regard complainant again informed the op and also sent video on whatsapp upon which op again asked him to bring printer to him and also asked him to repair the printer in five days. It is further averred that when he reached to the shop of op, then op asked him to give printer of another company and asked him that printer already given to him is not repairable. That when complainant asked him to provide a new printer then op in order to put off the matter asked him to wait for sometime and since three months he is postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and even despite his several requests he started misbehaving with him and in this way the op has caused unnecessary harassment, financial loss, mental agony and deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to refund the amount of printer and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for above said harassment.
3. On notice, initially none appeared on behalf of op and as such op was proceeded against exparte. However, thereafter an application was moved on behalf of op stating therein that he had gone out of station due to death of his father in law and as such he could not appear before this Commission. Accordingly he was allowed to join the proceedings. The filed written version submitting therein that contents of complaint are wrong and incorrect and complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass and humiliate the answering op. It is further submitted that on 25.05.2021 complainant visited to the shop of answering op and stated him that he has started new work in the Courts and he needs printer and asked him to provide an old printer to him so that his work may run. That accordingly op provided a printer of Canon company Model G-2000 (coloured) to him for an amount of Rs.5700/-. That at that time due to Covid-19 disease, there was lockdown and as such complainant did not use the printer and due to the said reason the ink of the printer became dry. It is further submitted that when complainant brought the printer to him then op after inserting new head in the printer of the amount of Rs.2200/- handed over the printer to the complainant in all right condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. That although no guarantee was provided to him at the time of sale of said printer but despite that the op at his own expenses after repairing and making it correct handed over the printer to the complainant. It is further submitted that then in the month of September, 2021 complainant again visited him and returned back the said printer to him and the op paid an amount of Rs.5700/- to the complainant through Google Pay on his mobile No. 98135-49602 the receipt of which is also with op. That op had to take an amount of Rs.2200/- for inserting head and Rs.1600/- for refilling of cartridge which amount is outstanding against complainant and when op demanded his said amount of Rs.3800/- from complainant then complainant with the intention of not paying the said amount has filed this false complaint and same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that earlier also the complainant had purchased an old laptop from someone and after harassing him and extracting huge amount from him compromised the matter and he is also pressurizing him to effect compromise and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to him and as such he is habitual of making such false complaints. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Amandeep son of Sh. Hansraj as Ex. CW2/A and blank proforma of application Ex.C1, transaction of the amount of Rs.5700/- paid to op through Phone-Pay Ex.C2 and CD Ex.C3.
5. On the other hand, op has tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, transaction of the amount of Rs.4700/- paid to complainant by op as Ex.R1 and messages Ex.R2, Ex.R3 regarding successful transaction and relevant page of his diary containing entries of above said outstanding amount against complainant as Ex.R4.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly the complainant had purchased a used printer from the op for an amount of Rs.5700/- as is evident from message of transaction dated 25.05.2021 Ex.C2. However, as the complainant was not satisfied with the working of the printer in question, therefore, op refunded back the amount of Rs.4700/- to the complainant through online as is evident from message regarding successful transaction Ex.R1 and op has also asserted in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A that remaining amount of Rs.1000/- was paid by him to the complainant in cash. Even the op has also asserted that he also inserted new head in the printer of the amount of Rs.2200/- and also refilled cartridge for an amount of Rs.1600/- and total amount of Rs.3800/- is still outstanding against the complainant and only to avoid payment of said amount he has filed this false complaint against op. So it is proved on record that op has already refunded back the amount of printer to the complainant as is evident from above said transaction Ex.R1 and affidavit Ex.RW1/A and as such complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 21.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
