Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
The Director General (Investigation ... vs Hewelet Packard (I) Ltd. on 19 October, 2001
ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. These proceedings arise out of the complaint dated 12th October, 1996 made by one Shri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, partner of M/s. Padampam Printo Compu Centre, 14/123A, Gopala Chambers, 1st Floor, Parade, The Mall, Kanpur - 208 001. The complainant alleged that he purchased the Laser Printer HP 5 from the respondent which has been found defective from the day one and the respondent failed to replace the defective laser printer. Therefore, the trade practice of supplying the defective printer and subsequently failing to replace the same, prima facie, amounts to attract an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 33A of the MRTP Act, 1969. Copy of the complaint dated 12th October, 1996 has already been placed on record. The Notice of Enquiry was issued and preliminary investigation report has been filed. The respondent submitted its reply dated 29th September, 1998 wherein it is categorically stated as follows :
(a) The customer approached us in May, 1996 for problem of dots in printouts, our organisation had launched a modified toner cartridge during this period to meet the Indian environmental condition, the customer was sent a modified toner cartridge C 3903F by courier.
(b) The customer again wrote to us in October, 1996, we advised Mr. Aggarwal that this product is environment sensitive as most computer products are, we advised the customer on the recommended temperature and humidity conditions and also on the right media and application. The customer requested for servicing and the same was organised through our authorised service provider M/s. Techno Serva on 23rd October, 1996, the customer was still using the old model cartridges and that was the reason for the poor print quality, customer was once again sent the modified cartridge C 3903F free of cost. Customer was sent a closure letter confirming the product is working OK after repairs oh 11th December, 1996. A copy of the service reports and the confirmation letter from HPI are enclosed as annexure 2.
(c) Customer came to our office on 14th February, 1997 and reported the problem of print quality once again and requested us to replace the unit with another unit. The customer gave us two options :
(i) Send engineer from Delhi with new printer and cartridge and instal at site.
(ii) Customer requested to hand carry the replacement unit to Kanpur.
The customer said clearly that when they are satisfied with replacement unit, they will return the original printer. This was given in writing, a copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure 3.
There was a delay from HPI to send the replacement unit to customer and a reminder was received from customer on 21st March, 1997, requesting for a HP LJ 5 MP as compensation, copy of the same enclosed as Annexure 4.
(d) The replacement printer with a new cartridge was sent on 24th April, 1997, printer serial number SGDB 002847, customer acknowledged the receipt of this printer on 28th April, 1997 and reported jamming problem and paper pickup problem from lower tray, the customer was advised to send the printer to HP Delhi or use the HP ASP at Kanpur to address this issue. The problem was resolved locally.
Customer did not return the old unit and is still retaining both the units in his custody.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the complainant was requested to return the old units and take refund which he failed to do so despite the offer having been made quite clearly as would be evident from reading the above said communication.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the categorical statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that an offer of refund was made to the complainant who neither returned the old units nor claimed any refund. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to continue the present proceedings as no case of unfair trade practice is made out. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed though liberty granted to the parties to revive the same, at a later stage, if it is deemed necessary.