District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 10 of 2009
Satyajit Prasad s/o Dhananjay Mahto
R/o Owner f R.K. Light, At Mamarkudar More, P.O.-Dhudhigazar, P.S.-Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
Sri Hitesh, Owner of Vora Collection, Shop No.-5, Vashnavi Complex, Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 08 April, 2009
Date of case filing-: 28 January, 2009
-: Judgment:-
Complainant has filed this present Consumer case against the opposite party and sought relief against the opposite party to replace the Machine in question or to pay Rs. 9380/- with 18% interest since Nov.08 till payment, to pay Rs. 25000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.
2 The complainant’s case in brief is that for his livelihood, he purchased from the opposite party Brother MFC 7010DCP, BG-0107680244 at a total price of Rs. 9380/- on 23.10.2008 with a warranty for one year. The said machine stopped functioning on 28.11.2008 and the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. When the defect in the machine was not attended, a legal notice dated 27.12.208 was sent to the opposite party by the complainant. Even then no rectification of the defect in the machine was done. Compelled, the complainant has filed this case for relief from the opposite party.
3 Upon issuance of the notice the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement, submitting therein that the opposite party is not the authorized After Sale Service Provider of the Product. M/s Accel Frontline Ltd., Jamshedpur is the authorized After Sale Service Provider of the Products of the Brother International (India) Pvt. Ltd for Bokaro Area. The complainant has not approached the company at Jamshedpur for rectification of defects in his Machine. As a good gesture, the opposite party contacted the service provider at Jamshedpur who communicated with the complainant at Telephone. It was disclosed by the complainant that he was using non recommended cartridges in his Machine which made the warranty void. In view of the above the opposite party is not negligent and deficient in service and hence it is not liable to pay any relief to the complainant.
4 Heard both the parties and perused the case records and documents filed by them. It is observed that the Machine in question developed defects and stopped functioning during the warranty period. It has not been established by the opposite party that the complainant was ever intimated by the opposite party regarding the authorized service provider in case of any defect in the machine. It has also not been established that the complainant was using none recommended cartridges in his Machine. Besides, it is found that no body from the opposite party and the service provider at Jamshedpur physically attended the defective Machine of the complainant when informed. The opposite party cannot avoid its responsibility for after sale service by merely passing on the information to the concerned agency. The opposite party should have ensured that the defect in the Machine sold by it to the complainant was attended at the earliest. This has not been done in the present case. The opposite party even failed to reply the legal notice of the complainant. We, therefore, hold that the opposite party has been negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and as such is held liable to pay relief to the complainant. The Machine in question is still under warranty period.
5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to get the defective Machine in question rectified free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President