ORDER
NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
Complainant purchased one canon printer Model MG 2570 online from Star CJ vide invoice no. 2014101101054 through teleshopping dated. 11-10-2014 for Rs. 2,999/-. It is alleged by the complainant that when he started using the Canon printer, and had taken around 15 photocopies, the printer stopped functioning. When the complainant lodged a complaint with Star CJ Alive for Defective printer, it advised the complainant to contact Canon Service Centre at Rajendra Place, New delhi.
It is further alleged by the complainant that on his complaint, a service engineer visited his house on 5-1-2015 and advised him to get both the cartridges replaced, cost of which was Rs. 2,500/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that when he enquired about the aforesaid printer in market, he found that the printer does not enjoy good reputation and has been giving poor results.
The complainant wrote various complaints through e-mails to M/s Canon Service Centre but has not received any response from it.
The complainant , therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of his grievances.
Notices of the complaint were sent to Ops through Regd. AD Post on 29.7.2015. The notices were not received back unserved and, therefore, service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops. Since, none had appeared on behalf of the Ops, they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.
In his ex-parte evidence, the complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavits wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record the retail invoice dated 11.10.2014, he has also placed on record the copy of Customer Service Report which clearly shows that the alleged Canon Printer was having a problem and it’s both cartridges had to be replaced.
In order to prove his case complainant has also placed on record the copies of E-mails regarding complaint of defective Canon Printer , made by him to the Ops.
No rebuttle was made by the OP against these e-mails.
From the unrebtted testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record , we are of the considered opinion that the Canon Printer sold to the complainant is a defective one.
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase . The object of the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
We hold OP3( M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. ) guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,999/- (cost of printer)
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by him, which also include cost of litigation.
The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fail to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and Case File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on…………………….
