State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. R. K. Nath. vs Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 26 July, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/93/2010 ( Date of Filing : 13 Dec 2010 ) 1. Mr. R. K. Nath. 38, A.P.C. Road, P.S. Amherst Street, Kolkata-700 009, at present 26, Baishnavghata By Lane, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 047. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Banglore - 560 030. 2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. DLF, II Park, Block - AF, Tower - C, 1st Floor, 8, Major Arterial Road, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700 156. 3. Trista Corporation 34A, Metcalf Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700 013. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Wasim Ahmed., Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Subhrajit Saha, Advocate Mr. Subhrajit Saha, Advocate Dated : 26 Jul 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The dispute revolves over alleged supply of a defective machine by the OPs.
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, on 02-03-2006, he purchased a Hewlett Packard Colour Laser 9850 mfp through the OP No. 3. The said machine, within a period of 6 - 7 months of its installation, started malfunctioning and despite repeated repairing of the same, the machine could not be made defect free. The machine is lying out of order since 29-04-2008. The Complainant though lodged several complaints, but the OP has not given any response. Therefore, the complaint is filed.
By filing a WV, it is submitted by the OP Nos. 1&2 that they provided ample support to the Complainant, as and when required. The Complainant entered into a service contract with the OPs, wherein, the Complainant was to pay the full invoice amount. However, the Complainant did not pay the full invoice amount and it is due till date. Hence, customer support was also withdrawn after a certain period of time. The service contract has been written off as a bad debt to the company.
The moot point for consideration is whether the Complainant deserves any relief, or not.
Decision with reasons Be it mentioned here that initially the OP Nos. 1&2 appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed WV, Evidence-on-Affidavit; put forth questionnaire in respect of the Affidavit-in-Chief filed by the Complainant and submitted reply against the questionnaire filed by the Complainant. However, at the time of hearing, none appeared on their behalf.
The allegation against the OP Nos. 1&2 is that, they have supplied a defective machine resulting which the same developed problem within 6/7 months of its use. In order to substantiate such allegation, the Complainant furnished copies of some correspondences that he made with the OPs.
However, for some obscure reasons, the Complainant has not furnished the relevant job sheets issued by the OPs to enable us to fathom the exact nature of problems faced by the Complainant. When similar problem resurfaces every now and then despite repeated repairing, it is indicative of an inherent problem of the machine. However, if the nature of problem varies from time to time, we cannot say so.
Above all, if the Complainant was so certain about the fact that the subject machine was beset with manufacturing defect, he could get it tested through an expert. However, the Complainant, for the reasons best known to him, did not contemplate such option. As a result, the veracity of his allegation remains unproven.
That apart, we find that the subject machine was purchased on 02-03-2006 and according to the petition of complaint, the machine completely went out of order w.e.f. 29-04-2008. It is quite unheard of that a defective machine is used for such longer duration.
Lastly, the OPs repeatedly alleged that since the Complainant did not pay due service charge, they stopped rendering any support to the Complainant. Although the Complainant vehemently denied such allegation, he has not filed the relevant money receipts to negate the allegation of the OPs.
For all these reasons, we are unable to satisfy ourselves about the veracity of complainant's allegation and therefore, the complaint case cannot be allowed.
Hence, O R D E R E D The case stands dismissed against the OPs being bereft of any merit. However, we make no order as to costs. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER