CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.355/2017

MR. MANISH KUMAR CHOUDHARY

N-2, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,

MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                           

Vs

1. COMPUTER EMPIRE

102, MEGHDOOT BUILDING,

NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019

2. HP INDIA PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

24 SALARPURIA ARENA ADUGODI HOSUR ROAD,

BENGLURU-560017, KARNATAA

3. IQOR GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

A-74, 1^ST AND 2^ND FLOOR , SIFE,

PHASE-2, OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110020

                                                          …………..RESPONDENTS

Date of Order: 16.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a HP printer on 17.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.18,000- from OP-1, OP-2 is the manufacturer.  After the printer was purchased, the complainant left for summer vacations hence the same could not be used till 04.07.2017.  After reopening of the office, the complainant installed the said printer and started using it.  At the time of using the printer, it revealed that the scanner was not working and a single page was scanned in two to three different pages. 

The complainant immediately called at the customer support and was advised to download scanner settings, however, the same was of no use.  After repeated calls at customer care, the complainant requested to register his complaint and the said complaint was registered vide complaint no.BJZC5005 dated 24.07.2017.  Subsequently, the printer was checked on three occasions by the service engineer of OP-3.  It is submitted that initial two visits were made by one Mr. Mohammad on 25.07.2017 and 26.07.2017 wherein after inspection, he found the scanning problem and informed the complainant that the scanner is defective and needs to be replaced and also mentioned in the job sheet dated 25.07.2017 that there was scanning issue, legal paper scanned 3 pages but divided 8 pages.  After inspection, the said service engineer left the premises on the pretext that he will visit tomorrow after seeking appropriate instructions and will rectify the defects.  On 26.07.2017, the said service engineer visited the premises and explained the defect in the printer and advised that the scanner needs to be replaced, however, there was no guarantee whether the same will work properly or not.  That no being assured, the complainant became apprehensive and requested to replace the said printer as the scanner of the same was not even used for a single day.  However, the said service engineer left the premises stating that some senior and more experienced service engineer will inspect the scanner and cure the defects.  Third time, another service engineer visited the premises and inspected the printer on 01.08.2017.  After inspection, it was again confirmed that the scanner was not working and the complainant was informed that the printer will be repaired.  The complainant then requested to replace the printer forthwith as he was facing hardship.  On the said request, the complainant was advised to write an email to the emails ids provided by him in this regard.

Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to either refund the cost of the printer or replace the printer and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.

Despite service of notice none appeared for OP hence OP was proceeded ex parte.

It is proved from the unrebutted testimony of the complainant that the printer supplied to him was defective.  Time and again the service engineer inspected the same but the defect could not be cured rather it was suggested that printer required replacement but the same was not done.  Various emails were sent but no reply was received from OP.  The complainant sent legal notice dated 23.10.2017 but nothing was done.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund a sum Rs.18,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

       (H.C. SURI)                                                          (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT