THE GODREJ & BOYCE Vs. MRIDULA MOJUMDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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 Aug., 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.