State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New Vision Imaging Pvt. Ltd. vs Photo Express, on 5 December, 2023
RED RESSALCo M M ISS l o N,oDISHA,CUTTACK
STATE Co N SU M E R DISP UTES
PP
OY the District Consumer
(From an order dated 22'2'2012 passeO
Forrr, Dhenkanal in C'C' No' 148 of 2009)
New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd',
Represented through B'S'Sridhara'
nuif'orised Signatory, new Vision House'
Tivin lndustrial Estate, MaPusa,
Goa - 403507
Appellant
Vrs.
1. Photo ExPress,
At - Mee na Bazar, Po/Ps/Dist - Dhenkanal'
Represented through its Proprietor. ^
Suryanarayan Sahoo, 19"d about 42years'
S/o BidYadhar Sahoo, Photo ExPress'
At - Mee na Bazar, Po/Ps/Dist - Dhenkanal
... ResPondent
2. M/s New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd''
Represented through its Local
Office-in-charge Rajib Das,
At - Kamrun Market ComPlex'
Bazar' Motiganj'
Ground Floor unJ i't Floor, Cinema
Balasore - 756003
3. Executive Director,
ttltlt ttt"* Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd''
Represented through P.P?9T'navan'
Road'
nt.E*.Com House - 7, Sakti Vihar
-
nnJh"ri (East), Mumbai 400072
Fortheappetiffitrltlsex.trttohapatra&Associates
& Associates
For respondent no'1 :M/s A'K'Jena & Associates
For responO"-ni'no' + : M/s B'N'Udgata
>,{n,ti6[
80,-x-t10
\- l_,, 2-FS&CW
I
2
Sl. No. Date of Office note as to action (if any
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order Order taken on Order
F.A.t73l?-0!2
5 \a.L))
P Heard learned counsel f :r the Appellant. ln the
present Appeal this commissiorr har ; passed final order on
22.02.2023 directing the OP to recti r7 the defect of the HP
Photo Smart PM 1000 Microlab printr rr.
:
ln pursuance of said ( ,rder OP No.ldeputed
Mr.Bharat Avadoot Tanavade for re moval of defect of HP
photo smart plry"r. Acco:-dingh ' on 28.02.2023 the
Company sent a lettq to the Res condent No.1 namely
)
photo express ,Dhenkanal through Speecl post fixing the
schedule dtd.14.03 .2.A23 . Accordingly the Company deputed
the Engineer to the place of tlre con plainant. The Engineer
moveci from Goa tcl Mumbai hy air rnd again move from
Mumbai to E,hubanesswar bv, air and then reached at
Dhenkanal and stayed at Hctel Sr" rya on payment of
Rs.1512/-,copy of the lnvoice issued b I Hotel Surya has beerr
filed alongwith the affidavit. The En1 ;ineer of OP No.1 has
filed the affidavit stating that on I he instruction of tlre
Company he stayed at Dhenkana I on 13.03.2023 and
1,4.03.2023 and could not trace out he shop namely Photo
1
express situated at Meeneblza ,Dhenkanal of the
Comp|ainant. From Shopkeepers hd came to know that
oGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW ) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020
4,
b*:X OB
l
S1. No. Office note as to action (if any),
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of taken on Order
about 4-5 years back the sho of the complainant has
permanently closed. The affidavi
and the docunrents filed by
the engineer be kept on record.
The case is di of accordingly.
(D.@ffitrrp
Officiating president
( p.K.prusty)
Member
ai*. \
(S.1. pattnaik)
Member
. x^
$"
..,Ndf
,,x"r}' {
$Kd' b
M ISSION'ODISHA'CUTTACK
STATE CONSU M ER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOM
FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 .OE.201,2 .
ordera District Consumer
(From an 9y].h"
Fotrr, Dhenkanal in C'C' No' 148 of 2009)
New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd',
Represented through B'S'Sridhara'
Authorised Signatory, new Vision House'
Tivin lndustrial Estate, MaPusa'
-
Goa 403507
APPellant
Vrs.
1. Photo ExPress,
At-MeenaBazar,Po/Ps/Dist-Dhenkanal'
Represented through its Proprietor
Suryanarayan Sahoo, aged about 42years'
S/o BidYadhar Sahoo, Photo ExPress'
nt - Mee na Bazar' Po/Ps/Dist - Dhenkanal
... ResPondent
2. M/s New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd',
Represented through its Local
Office-in-charge Rajib Das,
At - Kamrun Market ComPlex,
Motiganj'
Ground Floor rni f 't Floor, Cinema Bazar'
Balasore - 756003
3. Executive Director,
M/s New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd''
Represented through P' Padmanavan'
At.Ex.Com House - 7, Sakti Vihar Road'
-
Andheri (East), Mumbai 400072
Associates
For the appetlant: tVUs PXlnohapatra &
For respondeni no'1 :M/s A'K'Jena & Associates
& Associates
For responO"ni-no' + : M/s B'N'Udgata
,$+{tv-{(
PRESENT
HoN,BLEDR.JUSTICED.P.GHoUDHURY,PRESIDENT,
DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER
AND
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER
DATED THE 22"d FEBRUARY, 2023
ORDER
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK. MEMBER The learned counsel for both parties are present.
has a
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant photo studio namely photo express located at Meena Bazar' better service to Dhenkanal for maintaining his livelihood. For his customer, he has paid advance of Rs. 1,00,000/-
on purchase a new HP Lg.LL.200g to the o.p no.1 in order to cheque no' 075L61 Photo smart 1000 Microlab Printer bearing to return the without mentioning the date with an assurance chequeafterpaymentofthepriceofthemachinethrough demand. He further paid Rs' 3'00'000 to O'P no' t on in advance through demand draft which was L9.L2.2008 assured him to install the received bY O.P no.1 .The O.P no'l- ,?^**tk was machine within one week . on 24.L2. 2008, the machine delivered to him by O.P no.L with an assurance to install the machine within a week.
the
3. on 30. L2.2008, the engineers came and tried to install machine but could not install perfectly due to defect in machine. The complainant further averred that, the total cost and he of the machine was Rs. 3,64,000 l- as per sale invoice to o'P no' paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in advance through demand draft
1. The complainant further averred that , as per request of o'P Rs. L0,666/to him and no. ]. ,he paid six post-dated cheques of perfectly within the o.P no.l- assured him to install the machine of o'Pno"I three days. After several request, the engineers visited the studio of the complainant on dt' 22'OL'2009' 2L.o6.2oog,2S.oT.2oogbutcouldnotinstalledmachine perfectly.lnthemeantime,twochequesWereencashedbyo.P no.l.Thecomplainantalsoaverredthat,on30.0T.200g,the engineersofo.Pno.ladvisedhimtoreplacethemachinewith is defective which was beyond a new one because the machine frmr.o-\ 4 repair. He has approached several times to o.P no. 1, but the O.P no.L did not respond. Hence this complaint'
4. Upon notice the o.P no. 1to 3 filed their written version jointly stating that, this case is not maintainable before forum' These O.Ps denied all the allegations raised by the complainant. The o.Ps submitted that, there was an agreement executed between the complainant and O.Ps. The O'Ps also submitted that, the machine after installation was working properly. The O.Ps submitted that, they have attended every complaint of the complainant and suggested the complainant to to install the system in an air conditioned room and advised use servo stabilizer as well as online uPs. The complainant is So there is responsible for improper functioning of the system' The o'P no' 4 did no deficiency in service on the part of o.Ps.
not aPPear .Hetrce set ex-Partc' District Forum
5. After hearing both the parties ,the Learned has passed the following order :-
oxxx xxx xxx rpnqr..rtla tn the tight of the obove discussions, we find merit in the petition of comploint which is accepted with o direction to the opposite parties to reploce the HP Microlob System with o new one of similor description free of cost which shalt be free from ony defect and to install the same in the studio of the complainont ot their own cost. ln cose of non-replocement of the said machine ,the opposite parties are directed to refund to the comploinant the cost of the mochine alreody poid by him to opposite porty no.l. i.e Rs. 3,00,000 /- in shope of demond draft in ond Rs. 21,332/- in shape of two numbers of cheques totol Rs. 3,21.,332 /- and to return four numbers of postdoted chequesreceived by the opposite party no' f in cose of replocement, the complainont is directed to return porty no'1 the defective mochine in question to opposite on receipt of the amount of Rs' 3'27'332 /- already poid ondfournumbersofpostdotedchequesfromtheopposite partyno.l-.itisfurtherdirectedthotoppositepartyno.l. sholt return to the complainqnt the unused cheque bearingno.075161ofRs.1.,00,000/-alreadypaidin advance . the opposite porties qre also further burdened withcompensationandcostoflitigotionwhichwe quontifyRs.25,000/-osowhole,whichinourconsidered opinion,wotlldmeettheendsofjusticeintheinstant cose."
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that' the
6. in the eye of law' impugned order is illegal and not sustainable the complainant made The appellant submitted that, whenever attended the same ,tfr*li^ork complaints before o.P no. L, the engineers and suggested the complainant to install the system in a air conditioned room and use servo stabilizer as well as on line the UPS. But the Learned District Forum without considering facts committed error while passing impugned order' The appellant further submitted that, all the allegations raised by prayed to the complainant is false and vexatious. Therefore, set-aside imPugned order.
the
7. Learned counsel for respondent no. l- submitted that, O.P no t has supplied a defective machine which was pointed visited the out by him from the beginning. The engineers have no' 1 machine but could not install properly. The respondent further submitted that, the ops have never made room correspondence with him stating that, air conditioned with stabilizer are required for installation of machine' The affidavit that' he respondent also submitted in his aclditional has installed the air conditioner machine with stabilizer for comfort of his customers .The respondent further submitted but they that, he has requested o.Ps to replace the machine, 7frun,r^lt did not take any steps for which he has suffered huge loss' The respondent no. t also submitted that, the learned district prayed forum has rightly passed order in his favour 'Therefore, to dismiss the aPPeal.
8. Considered the submission of both the parties' Perused the DFR and impugned order. The onus lies on the complainant to prove his case.
9. lt is admitted fact that the complainant has a photo studio at Dhenkanal. The copy of New Vision lmaging Pvt'Ltd shows vide no.
that the o.p no .L received a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-
o75L6L without mentioning date from the complainant as cheque to be token of advance of HP- Microlab system. The was signed by treated and encashed after confirmation which of Rs. 3,00,000 /.
o.P No.1 with seal. The xerox copy of cheque shows that , the complainant has paid to o'P no'1 through demand draft no.052788 0n Lg.L2.2008 in advance and the o.Pno.lreceivedthesameontheSamedateasrevealsfrom lnvoice copy the copy marked as exhibit -3. The Tax/Retail ..{paW.a"tt which is marked as Exbt. 4 shows that the complainant has purchased HP-PHOTOSMART 1000 MICRoLAB SYSTEM form in O.P no.l- on dt.24.L2.2008. The cost of the machine shown invoice no. 79 as Rs. 3, 64,000/-. The delivery challan shows that, the machine was delivered to the complainant on himself
24.L2.2008. ln order to prove his case, the complainant got examined as PW 1 and all documents were exhibited as 1to L6 by the forum .There was an agreement executed between is marked the O.Ps and complainant on 8th January 2009 which as ext. 8 to purchase the HP photo printing system' The warranty conditions of the agreement are as follows :-
"xxx xxx xxx warranty for HP clause : 1.10 warranty means standard Equipment given bY HP' Clause:L.11,-thewarrantyperiodoft2monthsfromthedateof shop ' delivery of HP Equipment at the customer's period , render services for clause : NVI will during the warranty without NVI being fulfilling the warranty on behalf of HP 'but liable for HP'S Warranties ' .8yauna"'k that, during clause : 8.5 - warranty for HP Equipment stipulates the warranty period ,NVl shall provide to the customer ,services for maintenance of the said HP Equipment and for maintenance andupgradationoftheHPsoftwareaSalsoNVloperating software ,free of costs."
4 of
10. As per consideration and payment terms in clause on the said agreement the complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/-
amount of Rs' execution of the agreement and the balance 64,000 /- by means of six nos. of post-dated cheques of Rs.10,66 6 /- each. A series of copies from Exbt. 9 to 14 show 30'12'2008' The that, the engineers installed the machine on not be installed for engineers reported that, the machine could letter which is marked the problem in the machine .The copy of has requested o'Ps to as ext. 15 shows that, the complainant replace the machine with a new one' L1..Fromtheabovediscussionitisclearthat,thephoto in warranty period'it is the machine was found defective with dutyoftheo.Pstorectifythedefectswhenthewarranty condition does not cover replacement of printer with a new r ]ctnwte 10 one, only defective parts should be replaced and repaired' So, we confirm the finding of impugned order in part.
partly !2. ln view of the above facts and circumstances, we defects in allowed the Appeal and direct the O.Ps to rectify the photo HP System by removing deficiency in service and to 45 days of replace the required parts, if any, free of cost within this order. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith' parties or supply free copy of this order to the respective or the copy of this order be downloaded from confonet copy supplied Website of this Commission to treat same as from this Commission.
. 1,'; l., )\ ,it-' 6;:;;;ffi;;;;
President \:€g (Dr.P.K.PrustY) Member (Miss S.L.Pattnaik) Member Date 22. O2.2O23 Cuttack