This is a discussion on T.V.S. Electronics within the Electronics Appliances forums, part of the House Hold Goods category; Dharmavaram Krishna Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 30 years, Giddalur village, D.No.6-13-125/A2, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Complainant. Vs. 1. T.V.S. Electronics ...
Dharmavaram Krishna Rao,
S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 30 years,
Prakasam District. ...Complainant.
1. T.V.S. Electronics Ltd., (Head Office),
Plot No.34, Development Plots,
South Phase, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
2. Swetha Infotech,
4,5 & 6 Cellor,
Chenoy Trade Centre,
Park Lane, Secunderabad-03.
3. T.V.S. I Care,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
¾ Bradipet, Guntur. …Opposite parties.
2. The averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant is running E.Seva Center at Giddalur for collecting Electricity bills from the public. The complainant purchased T.V.S.E – 250 Champion Dot Matrix printer from the 2nd opposite party on 31.01.2008 for Rs.7,800/- and the warranty period is two years. Within three months of purchase the printer was not working properly and the complainant found that bill papers were not passing out from the printer (Paper Jamming).
Immediately the complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party informed the same to the 3rd opposite party to repair the printer. The service Engineer of the 3rd opposite party went to Giddalur and found that there was paper jamming problem in the printer and taken away the printer along with him to Ongole office for repairs. He promised to return the printer within 3 days after repairing. But, the 3rd opposite party inspite of reminders fail to repair the printer for one month.
The same was informed to the 2nd opposite party. After one month the 3rd opposite party returned the printer without rectifying the problem in the printer. The complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party sent the service engineer of 4th opposite party. The service engineer had taken away the printer from the complainant and there after he did not return the same after affecting repairs. Due to the above acts committed by the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mentally and it is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint.
3. The opposite parties 3 and 4 remained ex-parte. The 1st opposite party filed its counter contending as fallows: It is true that the complainant purchased the printer from one of the dealers of the 1st opposite party namely the 2nd opposite party herein on 31.01.2008 for Rs.7,800/- and the warranty period was for 24 months. The complainant has been using the printer for his business for the purpose of collecting electricity bills from public and not for personal use.
Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The complainant registered complaints with the 1st opposite party on 17.04.2008, 03.05.2008, 20.05.2008, 27.06.2008, 23.07.2008 stating that the printer was not working. On 27.06.2008, the service engineer of the 1st opposite party replaced the main logic card and handed over the printer in working condition to the complainant.
There are no defects in the printer and due to improper use of the printer the printer was giving trouble. After replacing the main logic card as per the complaint registered on 27.06.2008 the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to collect the printer but he refused to receive the same and to sign on the service call report. As there was no other alternative the 1st opposite party took back the printer to its office on 23.07.2008.
The complainant registered a false complaint stating that the printer was not working though the printer was in the custody of the 1st opposite party. Again the printer was arranged for delivery to the complainant in perfect working condition on 06.08.2008 but the complainant refused to accept the same and did not sign the service call report. The complainant demanded for replacement with a new printer.
The complainant filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to harass the 1st opposite party. Service has been provided to the complainant when ever the same was needed by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Due to improper handling of the printer the printer was giving trouble and 1st opposite party cannot be held liable for the same. For the foregoing reasons the 1st opposite party prays the forum to dismiss the complaint.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed its counter contending as fallows: 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1st opposite party. It is true that the complainant had purchased T.V.S.E-250 Champion Dot Matrix Printer on 31.01.2008 for Rs.7,800/- with warranty for a period of two years.
When the complainant informed them about the defect in the printer they referred him to the 3rd opposite party service engineer of 1st opposite party for rectification of the defects. The service engineer of the 3rd opposite party went to Giddalur and repaired the printer it appears that the printer was still defect. As per the general terms of the warranty, it is the duty of the manufacturer to carryout any repairs to the product or undertake the replacement of the product if necessary.
In the present case if there is any defect in the printer the 1st opposite party alone is responsible and the 2nd opposite party is not responsible for the alleged defect in the printer. For the foregoing reasons the 2nd opposite party prays the forum to dismiss the complaint.
5. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. The Ex.A1 is the Purchase bill dated 31.01.2008. Ex.A2 is the Warranty card dated 31.01.2008. Ex.A3 is the Service job sheet dated 02.07.2008. Ex.A4 is the Legal notice issued by the complainant. Ex.A5 is the Acknowledgement cards. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint.
7. It is an admitted case that the complainant who is running E.Seva Center at Giddalur purchased T.V.S.E-250 Champion Dot Matrix printer from the 2nd opposite party on 31.01.2008 for Rs.7,800/- and the warranty period is two years. 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the printer.
8. The case of the complainant is that within 3 months of purchase the printer started giving trouble due to manufacturing defects in the printer and it could not be repaired by the service engineers of the 1st opposite party. Hence, the complainant is seeking for replacement of the printer in the alternative for refund of the cost of the printer.
9. The 1st opposite party opposed the petition on the fallowing grounds.
Firstly:- That the complainant purchased the printer and used the same for collecting electricity bills from the public for commercial purpose and not for personal use and he is not a consumer.
Secondly:- That due to improper use of the printer by the complainant the printer started giving trouble and there was no manufacturing defects and the opposite parties are not liable to replace the printer.
10. The 2nd opposite party dealer contended that on receiving complaint from the complainant he referred him to 3rd opposite party and 4th opposite party for affecting repairs and they could not repair the printer. Therefore, 1st opposite party who is the manufacturer alone is responsible to reimburse the loss and not the 2nd opposite party.
11. It is true that the complainant is running E.Seva Center at Giddalur for collection of electricity bills from the public. For preparing bills he purchased the printer from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainant purchased the printer not for resale but for his use for earning is livelihood by means of self-employment. So, he is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P.Act and the complaint is maintainable.
12. The counter filed by the 1st opposite party itself shows that the printer was defective. The 1st opposite party stated in their counter that the complainant registered complaint on 17.04.2008, 03.05.2008, 27.06.2008, 23.07.2008 alleging that the printer was not printing and there is a problem of paper jamming. Every time their service engineer repaired the printer by replacing the parts. But the printer continuous to give trouble and frequent repairs within 3 months of purchase of the printer goes to show that the printer is beyond repair. A person purchasing a particular article is entitled to have a defect free sample of the article.
The very fact that the printer had frequent repairs within 3 months of purchase and not repaired inspite of frequent repairs shows that there is some defect in the printer it self. We cannot say that it is due to improper use as alleged by the manufacturer. It is unfortunate that opposite parties 1 and 2 fail to acknowledge the defects in the printer and litigating the matter. Because of the attitude of opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant suffered not only monitory loss, but mental agony through out. The liability of opposite parties 1 and 2 shall be joint and several. Therefore, opposite parties can be directed to replace the printer with new one or refund the price there of with interest to the complainant.
13. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the printer in question with a new printer or in the alternative to refund the costs of the printer i.e., Rs.7,800/- along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of order. Failing which the amount carries interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.