IMPORTANT POINT
Denial of after-sale service amounts to unfair trade practice.

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, The Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. against the impugned order dated 29.1.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (for short, ‘State Commission) in FA No.984/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that R-1/Complainant purchased multi-colour printer from Petitioner/OP-2 who was the authorized dealer of OP-1/Respondent No.2. R-3/OP-3 is the service provider for maintenance services. The printer was installed on 7.4.2008 and the warranty was for three months only. In August, 2009, Respondent-1/complainant experienced some problem with the printer. The complainant contacted the petitioner but came to know that the petitioner was no longer a dealer of OP-1. Complainant then contacted OP-1 and he was told that OP-3 was the new service provider. Though some agreement was entered between OP-3 and the complainant and OP-3 replaced some parts as well as their engineers visited and repaired. However, it again started giving trouble after some time, but, then the maintenance work was not taken up by OP-3. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barast ( in short ‘District Forum”), alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

3. The complaint was resisted by different OPs on different grounds. After hearing the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 22.11.2012.

4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.1.2015 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:

“On the foregoing facts and submission we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the District Forum in the impugned judgment and order.

In the light of the above discussion, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.

The Respondent No.1. OP No.1 and the Respondent No.2/OP No.2 are directed, jointly and /or severally , to pay to the Appellant/Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Appellant/Complainant. The Respondent Nos.1&2 are also directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the Appellant/complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue on the said amount till default.”

5. Hence, the revision petition filed by OP-2/Petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-2 stated that he had successfully installed the printer and has served the printer till warranty period was over. Warranty period expired on 6.7.2008. No separate agreement was entered with OP-2 by the complainant in respect of the maintenance of the printer and hence OP-2 had, in fact, no connection with R-1/complainant beyond the date of expiry of warranty. If there was any manufacturing defect, then OP-1/R-2 would be responsible and not the OP-2/petitioner. The complaint has been filed in April, 2011 and hence, it was beyond limitation so far as OP-2/petitioner is concerned, because any cause of action qua OP-2 could have arisen only before 6.7.2008 which is not the case in the matter. Thus, the order of the State Commission holding OP-2/petitioner liable jointly and severally with OP-1 to pay compensation of Rs. 100,000/- is totally illegal and suffers from material irregularity.

8. The learned counsel for R-3/OP-3 stated that no order has been passed against R-3 and therefore, OP-3 has nothing to say in the matter.

9. Learned counsel for R-1/complainant stated that OP-2/petitioner concealed the fact that its dealership had already been terminated on 31.3.2008 whereas the printer was purchased on 3.4.2008 and installed on 7. 4.2008. Had the OP-2/petitioner disclosed its cancellation of dealership, the complainant would have giv