State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P. Subramanian, Yercaud Main Road, ... vs The Authorised Authority / ... on 30 October, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present: Honble Thiru Justice R. Regupathi PRESIDENT Thiru J. Jayaram, M.A., M.L. JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A. 631 / 2011 (Against Order in C.C.135/2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem) Dated this the 30th day of OCTOBER, 2012 P. Subramanian, ] S/o Late M. Palani Chetty, ] No.4/33-A, First Cross, ] Thirunagar (Opp. to ] Appellant / Complainant Central Jail), ] Yercaud Main Road, ] Salem 636 007 ] Vs. The Authorised Authority / Officer, ] Perennial Systems, ] No.25/15, Vinayagar Koil Street, ] Respondent / Opposite Party Swarnapuri, ] Salem 636 004 ] This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 12.09.2012 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order: Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr. K. Ganesan, Advocate Counsel for Respondent / : Mr. T. Balaji, Advocate Opposite Party O R D E R
THIRU J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem in C.C.135/2010, dated 27-04-2011, dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Printer from the opposite party on 29-12-2009 through a representative and the warranty period was one year. The Printer did not function well and the complainant was not satisfied with the performance and he returned the Printer to the service centre namely the Redington (India) Limited, Salem and his printer was replaced by another one on 20-09-2010 and the complainant was not satisfied with the newly supplied printer too. Prior to this, the old printer was taken to the service centre for service and rectification of defects on 15-03-2010 and 09-09-2010 and even then the defects could not be rectified and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the complaint till realization, and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and also to pay costs.
3. According to the opposite party, they are only agents and they are not responsible for the service of the product. The opposite party does not know the problem with the printer and the complainant has approached the service centre at Salem viz., Redington (India) Ltd, for service of the printer and it was serviced and rectified in the month of March, 2010 and the complainant was provided with another printer during the month of September 2010. Further, the manufacturer of the printer and the service dealers are not impleaded as parties and this amounts to non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, the complainant has availed of the services of the service dealer on 15-03-2010 and on 09-09-2010 and the printer was replaced by another one by the service dealer on 20-09-2010. The complainant has issued notice to the opposite party only on 16-11-2010 after using the printer for 11 months. Now, the complainant has filed this complaint with the intention of getting a new printer with toner, as could be seen from his notice dated 16-11-2010. There is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, considering the rival contentions, dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. First, it is pertinent to note that the service centre has replaced the printer used by the appellant / complainant by providing another one. It is further relevant to note that the service centre has carried out servicing and rectification of the defects on 15-03-2010 and 09-09-2010 as evidenced by Exhibits A3 and A4. Further, we have to note that no experts opinion / evidence is adduced to establish the manufacturing defects in the printer and to further substantiate that the replaced printer was also defective. It is to be further noted that the manufacturer is a necessary party in the complaint but the manufacturer of the product is not impleaded as a party, which amounts to non-joinder of necessary party. There is no substance in the submission of the appellant / complainant that the District Forum ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant to demonstrate the functioning of the printer in open Court / Forum and also that the District Forum ought to have deputed a qualified mechanic to the residence of the complainant in order to find out the defects in the printer. The contentions of the appellant / complainant are untenable. The complainant has relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indochem Electronic & Another vs. Addl. Collector of Customs, A.P. reported in 2006(3) SCC-721 to urge that despite expiry of the period of warranty, maintenance of the system to the partys satisfaction is its contractual obligation. The ratio of the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since the warranty period is one year, whereas only 11 months period has elapsed while issuing notice. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant has not made out any case against the opposite party and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that there is no merit in the appeal.
6. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, based on proper and valid reasons. We agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.
J. JAYARAM R. REGUPATHI JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT