INDEPENDENT BUSINESS MACHINES (P) LTD. vs BANSAL COMPUTER SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ASHISH BANSAL

THIS appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 9.12.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 995 of 1996. The District Forum has allowed this complaint with costs of Rs. 550/- and direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st January, 1996 till payment. The complainant is also directed to send the copy of invoice with him to opposite party No. 2 within one week of this order. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal by M/s. Independent Business Machines (P) Limited, SCO No. 269, Sector 32-C, (opposite Nirman Cinema), Chandigarh through its Manager Shri Sandeep represented by learned Counsel Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate has been preferred. The appellant/respondent No. 1 has prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Forum be modified by deleting the appellant from the requirement of refund and compensation and direct only the respondent No. 2, the manufacturer to refund and compensate the complainant.

THE respondent No. 1-M/s. Bansal Computer Services/complainant through its proprietor, Shri Ashish Bansal purchased one laser printer on 12.6.1995 at the cost of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant-M/s. Independent Business Machines (P) Limited/respondent No. 1 in the complaint case. THE laser printer had been manufactured by respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited, Paharpur Business Centre, 21-Nehru Place, New Delhi. THE printer started giving trouble to the respondent No 1-M/s. Bansal Computer Services/complainant within few days of its purchase and use and the matter was brought to the notice of the appellant/ respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. THE laser printer was described as HPJL 5P. THE copy of the bill has been attached as Annexure C-l with the complaint case. THE appellant/ respondent No. 1 informed the complainant/ respondent No. 1-M/s. Independent Business Machines (P) Ltd. that this machine of respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited was having manufacturing defect and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is taking it back and is refunding the money. THEreafter the said printer was returned to appellant/respondent No. 1 and a letter was written by appellant/respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 on 4.12.1995 giving the details that the printer is giving smudged output even in the air conditioner environment and requested for the refund of the amount. Copy of letter dated 4.12.1995 has been attached as Annexure P-2 with the complaint case. THE complainant/respondent No. 1 M/s. Bansal Computer Services received no response from the appellant/respondent No. 1, but in some of other cases where similar models were purchased the amount was refunded. As a result of which the complainant/respondent No. 1 was forced to purchase another printer from M/s. Godrej Tools & Services Limited for a sum of Rs. 60,180/-. A copy of the invoice of the said laser printer has been attached with the complaint. After long wait, the respondent No. 1 / complainant requested appellant/respondent No. 1 to attend to his complaint and refund Rs. 55,000/- along with interest but all his requests and letters fell on deaf ears. THE respondent No. 1-M/s. Bansal Computer Services/complainant in the complaint case has however prayed that respondents be directed to refund the price amounting to Rs. 55,000/- along with interest @ 24% per month from the date of purchase of the laser printer till the date of filing of present complaint and further interest @ 24% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. He has further prayed for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for loss of income for one month and Rs. Rs. 5,500/- for mental harassment and agony and costs of filing of the complaint amounting to Rs. 3,300/- in the interest of justice. In the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, the case was contested only by the appellant/ respondent No. 1-M/s. Independent Business Machines (P) Ltd. who raised certain preliminary objections againsst the maintainability of the complaint case in the District Forum. However, it was stated that the respondent No. 1/ complainant had paid only Rs. 47,940/- to the appellant/respondent No. 1 out of which about Rs. 7,000/- was refunded to the complainant. It was explained by the appellant/respondent No. 1 in the District Forum that he is only a reseller of the product and the dealer is M/s. H.P. India Limited which has not been impleaded as party in the case. The printer was repaired by the manufacturing Company and was lying ready for delivery with the appellant/respondent No . 1 since January, 1996 but the respondent No. 1/ complainant had not taken the delivery of the same for the reasons best known to him.

The appellant/respondent No. 1 in his averments alleged manufacturing defect in the printer which is manufactured by respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited. Moreover, it is settled law that a dealer cannot be held responsible for defects in goods. In a complaint alleging manufacturing defect, the order can be passed only against the manufacturer, i.e. respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited, Paharpur Business Centre, 21-Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, District Forum held the appellant also liable for the refund and compensation towards the defective printer. In view of this, the appellant/ respondent No. 1 has prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh be modified by deleting the appellant from the requirement of refund and compensation and direct respondent No. 2 to refund and compensate the complainant singly.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent No. 1 Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant M/s. H.P. India Limited, Mr. Yogesh Mittal, Advocate and have carefully perused the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh and the record of the complaint case. WE now proceed further to examine the rival contentions of the parties. The request of the complainant/respondent No. 1 M/s. Bansal Computer Services is for the refund of the price paid by him towards the purchase of laser printer in question. The point that the printer turned out to be defective one is made out from the document Annexure C-2 and the letter dated 4.12.1995 written by the appellant/ respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 the manufacturer, inter alia, saying that the printer was giving smudged output even in air conditioned environment, Obviously, the piece was defective and it did not give desired service to the complainant/respondent No. 1s The appellant/respondent No, 1 during the course of arguments has stated that its manufacturer/ respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited should be made liable to refund the costs of laser printer and not the appellant/respondent No. 1 because he is only an agent/dealer in selling the products. The manufacturer/respondent No. 2 admitted liability and agreed to refund the amount vide its letter dated 15.4.1997 (Annexure C-10). However, the complainant/respondent should sent the copy of the invoice and also the printer to service centre for processing the refund.

THE District Forum-II has gone into the complaint details regarding the stand taken by the complainant/respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and came to the right findings that both the appellant/respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2, the manufacturer of the laser printer are deficient in service for not looking into the complaint of the consumer properly whereby he suffered mental harassment and loss in business as a result of which he was compelled to make alternative arrangement by purchasing a printer from other source. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ respondent No. 1 has cited before us Auto Lines, Jalna v. Kum. Vijaya J. Bhutada, reported in III (1995) CPJ 163, and Dr. C.B. Malhotra v. Telecom General Manager, Ambala, Cantt. & Anr., reported in III (1995) CPJ 164, which are totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold the finding of the District Forum regarding the deficiency in service on part of both the parties, i.e. respondent No, 1-M/s, Independent Business Machines (P) Ltd,, and manufacturer/ respondent No. 2-M/s. H.P. India Limited, resulting in mental harassment and suffering to the complainant/respondent No. 1 The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.