SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ADVOCATE vs GROOVY COMMUNICATIONS

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum-H(D.F.) dated 10.3.94 dismissing the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a computer and printer manufactured by M/s. Sterling Computer Ltd., OP-2, from M/s. Groovy Communications, OP-1 dealer of OP-2, for a sum of Rs. 26,387/- in September 1991. It is alleged that it carried warranty for one year. The printer started giving problem in January 1992, which was attended to by OP-1 and the complainant was informed by them that the problem had been rectified. It is further pleaded, that when the mechanic of OP-1 came to inspect the printer, he had informed the complainant that there was some defect in the head. The problem recurred and complaint was made to OP-1. The printer was taken by them (OP-1) for repair. The complainant was asked to pay Rs. 900/- as the repair charges of the printer which he reluctantly paid. It is further pleaded that the refusal to replace the head free of cost and unsatisfactory service of the OPs even on payment of Rs. 900/- forced him to institute this complaint.

The OP contested the complaint and inter-alia pleaded that the computer had been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and therefore, he is not a consumer. It is further pleaded by them that in the warranty card it was specifically mentioned that the consumables which included the printer head, will not be covered by the warranty and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief.

THE D.F. held that the complainant was not a consumer and that the dispute was regarding printer head which had been specifically excluded by warranty. Consequently it dismissed the complaint. THE complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission. The first question that requires determination is, whether the complainant is a consumer. The complainant is a practising lawyer. He is not carrying on business of re-sale of goods or any other commercial activity. The consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) and it means any person who buys any goods for consideration, but does not include a person, who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose. The printer has not been purchased by the complainant for any comercial purpose or for re-sale but for use in his office and thus increasing the efficiency of the staff working there. In the circumstances it cannot be held that he is not a consumer. Consequently we reverse the finding of the D.F. in this regard and hold that the complainant is a consumer.

THE second question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to replacement or repair of the printer and refund of Rs. 900/-. THE Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice three service call reports of the mechanic of the OP, who had been called for rectifying the defect in the printer. THE first service call report is dated 23.1.92. In that report it is reported that there was problem with the printer and the defect was rectified by the OP without any charges. THE report of the'' service engineer after the repair was ''the printer was working OK after the repair''. The second report is dated 23.3.92. In this report the problem observed by the engineer was as follows: "Printer is not taking underline in the mode command." In view of the aforesaid defect the printer was taken by the engineer to OP''s office for checking and repair. The repair in the printer was carried out on the same date and it was returned after obtaining the signatures of the agent of the appellant. The aforesaid report also shows that there was defect in the printer and the same was rectified. The third service call report is dated 2.4.92. The problem mentioned in the report was: "In NLQ mode underline not coming but draft mode and underline coming." This defect in our view is also that of the printer and not of the head. The action taken report is as follows: "Checked the printer. Found downpin 1 not working proper way." This report further affirms that the defect was in the printer and not in the printer head and that the defect was removed by the OP. Therefore, we are of the view, that the OP should not have charged Rs. 900/- as repair charges of the printer and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the said amount. It appears from the above said reports that the defect in printer has not been removed though the engineers of OP-1 have repaired it many times. In the circumstances it will be proper that the OPs should replace the printer. The third question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to get the printer head changed. The computer was purchased in Sept. ''91 and that no complaint was made by the complainant regarding the head upto 2.4.92. Even no such defect was pointed out by the engineers of OP-1. It appears that the complaint regarding the head was made by him after April ''92 for the first time. The head is a consumable item. In the warranty certificate it is mentioned that under warranty system maintenance shall not include the cost of consumable items such as ribbons, magnetic tapes; floppy diskettes, printer head etc. It is not acceptable to us that the consumables should carry no warranty at all. However, taking into consideration each item the period of warranty can be fixed by the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of a printer head we fix the period of warranty as six months. No complaint has been made by the complainant regarding defect in the head within the said period. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get the printer head repaired or replaced free of charge after six months.

THE last question that requires to be determined is, whether the complainant is entitled to the extension of period of warranty regarding the computer. THE complainant started making complaints regarding its mal-functioning within a short period after the date of purchase. THE defects, it is alleged by him, have not been rectified till date and that is why he had to file the complaint before the D.F. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, we extend the period of warranty for computer except of the consumable items therein for a period of nine months from the date of replacement of the printer. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal with costs, set-aside the order of the D.F. and direct the OPs to refund Rs. 900/- and change the printer within a period of 90 days, failing which action shall be taken against them u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Warranty of the computer is extended for a period of nine months from the date of replacement of the printer. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.