Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 386.
Instituted on : 03.07.2017.
Decided on : 19.03.2019.
Sandeep Kumar, age 36 year, son of Sh. Azad Singh, Resident of House No. 3479/10, Inder Vihar Colony, Rohtak. ………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Computer Planet, Appu Ghar Shopping Complex, Rohtak, through its Prop./Authorized Person.
2. Epson India Private Ltd, M-12, M-16A, Mezznine Floor, 89, Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
3. Epson India Pvt. Ltd, 12th Floor, The Millenia, Tower-A, No. 1,, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Banglore-560008 (Karnatka) through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
4. Manager, EPSON Service Centre, Shop No. 105, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Naseeb Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Prinkle Khurana, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 & 4.
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte v.o.d. 18.08.2017.
Opposite party No. 2 given up v.o.d. 18.08.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one printer Epson L360 bearing Sr. No. VGGK014624 on dated 06.07.2016 vide Invoice No. 1846/2016-17 dated 06.07.2016 and paid Rs.10,250/-. Respondents provided guarantee and warranty of one year of said printer to the complainant. It is alleged that the said printer is having problem since its beginning and during warranty period said printer is not working properly and same has become defective. That complainant made complaint to the respondents many times about the same, as after giving command same has stand idle for lot of time, the company claims L360 printer at least 4500 black pages in one black ink bottle as well as 7500 pages in colour bottles. As on 24.05.2017 printer had printed 845 black pages and 399 colour pages and its 80% black ink and 50% colour ink has been finished which is totally adverse as claimed by company. On 24.05.2017, the printer stopped working then complainant lodged complaint with the respondents and it was assured to the complainant that their engineer shall visit and rectify the fault in said printer. Mechanic of respondents visited and rectified the defects temporarily but when complainant worked with the printer, same had not worked properly. That the engineer of the respondents company told to the complainant that quality of printer cannot be improved. That The said printer is within warranty period and respondents are legally bound to replace the same, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant. That the act of opposite parties of not replacing the printer in question is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the printer in question with new one or to return the amount of Rs.10,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from its date of accrual till its actual realization and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in its reply submitted that it is wrong and denied that respondents provided any guarantee and warranty of one year of said printer to the complainant. It is further submitted that it is wrong and denied that the said printer has problem since its beginning and during warranty period said printer has not worked properly and same has become defective. It is wrong and denied that on 24.05.2017 printer had printed 845 blank pages and 399 colour pages and its 80% blank ink and 50% colour ink has been finished. It is wrong and denied that when the complainant worked with the printer same has not worked. It is also denied that the engineer of the respondents company told to the complainant that quality of printer can not be improved. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Whereas, opposite party No. 1 was failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.08.2017 passed by this Forum. Opposite party No. 2 was given up by the complainant vide his separately recorded statement dated 18.08.2017.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. The contention of complainant is that as per advertisement of OPs, L360 printer can print at least 4500 black pages in one black ink bottle as well as 7500 pages in a colour bottle. As per the complainant the printer have printed only 845 black pages and 399 colour pages and its 80% black ink and 50% colour ink has been finished. After that complainant registered a complaint with the respondent and filed complaint no.3562078 on dated 24.05.2017. To prove this fact, complainant has placed on record a copy document Ex.C1 in which the number of colour pages is mentioned as 399 and black pages is 845. Moreover the total pages has been mentioned as 1269. The complainant has also placed on record some other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 alongwith the bill which is Ex.C7. On the other hand, respondent has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith one document which is power of attorney issued by Mr. Ashok Kumar Dass, Authorized Signatory.
7. The bare perusal of the affidavit and written statement itself shows that it has been admitted by the respondents that the complaint was registered on dated 24.05.2017 with the respondent vide complaint no.3562078. But this fact has been denied that the printer had printed only 845 black pages and 399 colour pages and its 80% ink has been finished. To prove this fact respondent has not placed on record any document that the document of the complainant is false and fabricated. Moreover the respondent officials failed to place on record or to prove that technician of the respondents visited the complainant’s premises and complaint made by the complainant was rectified in any manner till date. Meaning thereby there is admission on the part of the opposite parties.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party No. 3 & 4 to refund the price of printer i.e. to pay Rs.10250/-(Rupees ten thousand two hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.03.07.2017 till its realization and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to handover the printer in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the payment from the opposite parties.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
