This petition of complaint is filed u/s 12 ofSagarika Sarkar, Member C.P. Act of 1986 by Shree Debabrata Satpathy alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above named O.Ps.
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a HP Printer Laser Jet 1020 from the O.P. No.1(a) at a consideration of Rs.7,080/-(Seven thousand eighty) only on 03/09/2013 from their Kolkata office with the invoice Contd..P/2 ( 2 ) no.SHOW/14722/13-14. The said printer was under warranty of one year which means it was under coverage of warranty upto 02/09/2014. The complainant has further stated that he found the said printer had gone out of order on 12/08/2014, for which he informed the O.P. no.1(a) & (b) requesting them to repair/replacement of the printer since it was his main source of livelihood. The matter, as stated by the complainant, was reffered to the Assistant Director, Consumer affairs & Fair Business Practice on 02/09/2014, for practice for settlement in respect of which the Assistant Director initiated for amicable settlement but did not succeed. However after long persuasion the complainant was advised to handover the printer to O.P. no. 3, but subsequently the O.P.
no.3 refused to repair the said printer on the plea that the invoice did not bear VAT no.
and the said printer also did not bear any number. The complainant has stated that those allegations were not true since both the invoice and printer bore the required numbers.
Therefore, the complainant, as per advice of O.P. no.2 took the said printer and deposited it to the O.P. No.2 in Medinipur for servicing of said printer against their receipt cum token number 698 on 29/08/2014. A service engineer attended the printer and opined that the Formatter card not working. The complainant, thereafter compelled to buy a printer of updated improved version without taking any risk at a consideration of Rs.55,357/- dated 04/04/2015. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for an award of remuneration for Rs.2,23,437/-.
The O.P. nos. 1 (a) & 2 contested the case and filed written statements separately.
In the written statement filed by the O.P. no.1(a) it is stated that the complainant bought a printer from O.P. No.1(a) but, thereafter, did not approach to the said O.P.
regarding any problem as developed up the sold printer. It is specifically stated by the O.P. no1(a) that at the time of handing over the said printer the O.P. no.1(a) demonstrated the complainant regarding function of the said printer and being satisfied with that demonstration, the complainant received the printer and it was also told to him that in further if the printer fails to work properly, the complainant had to move to the authorized service centre of the company of the printer for having service under warranty coverage and the O.P. no.1(a) being mere seller of the product, is not the authority to provide after sale service. Accordingly the O.P. no.1(a) prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In the written statement filed by the O.P. no.2 is stated that the petition of complaint defect for non-joinder of necessary party since the manufacturer has not been made party to the present case. It is further stated that the O.P. no.2 is an independent Contd..P/3 ( 3 ) legal entity and not an agent or representative of the manufacturer of the said printer and therefore, has no liability to provide after sale service in respect of same. It is further stated by the O.P. no.2 that the complainant had registered a complaint with the manufacturer over online on 29/08/2014 in respect of which the service engineer requested the complainant to produce the invoice to verify the VAT number but the complainant did not provide the same and, therefore, the said complaint was rejected due to absence of VAT number. Accordingly the O.P. No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
O.P. no.3 did not turn up. Hence the case preceded ex-parte against O.P. No.3.
To prove their respective cases, the complainant adduced no evidence, although he was given opportunity of adducing evidence. O.P. no.2 adduced evidence on affidavit.
:Points for decisions 1.Whether the case is maintainable before this Forum ? 2.Is non-joinder of the necessary party bad in law ? 3.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.? 4.Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ? :Decisions with reasons .Point nos.1 & 2 Admittedly the complainant purchased a printer HP-Laser J 1020 manufactured by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. In the petition of complaint, the complainant has alleged inherent defect in the said printer. The complainant has sought Redressal of the dispute cropped up in respect of the said defect of the said printer. However, curiously enough, the complainant had not made party the manufacturer namely Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Who is also the authority to issue warranty in respect of the said printer. Since petition of complaint suffers from non-joinder of the proper party the same cannot be taken into consideration for adjudication. Non-joinder of necessary party is bad in law.
Point nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.
.Point nos. 3 & 4 Since the point no.1 is answered negative there is no scope to enter into the merit of the case and thus it is unnecessary to determine the point numbers 3 & 4.
Contd..P/4 ( 4 ) Point nos. 2 & 3 are answered accordingly.
In the result the petition of complaint does not succeed.
ORDERED the consumer complaint case no.139/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.
Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and Corrected by me Sd/- S. Sarkar Sd/-B. Pramanik.
Member President District Forum Paschim Medinipur