BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.210 of 2019
Date of Instt. 18.06.2019
Date of Decision: 14.06.2023
Rajan Prashar, B-410, Opp. Mandir Lahorian, Mitha Bazar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Crest & Company, 118-119, Sangam, Complex, Milap Chow, Jalandhar, through its Proprietor Suresh Sabarwal.
2. Brother International India Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.801-802, 8th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Mumbai-400076.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Varinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. I. S. Bhatia, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is running printing job work and works single handedly to earn his livelihood and is a self employed person. The OP No.1 is the authorized sale and service center of OP No.2 and deals in the selling of computer printers manufactured by the OP No.2. The complainant purchased a Brother color inkjet printer No.T 500 (E74707M6H967685) on 19th June 2017, vide invoice no.CC/INV/RI/64 for Rs.11,400/- in his name from OP No.1. At the time of sale of above said printer to the complainant, it was told that, Brother International India Pvt. Ltd. Provides warranty for its products for 12 months from the date of the purchase of product for any defect during that period and for return of purchase money in case defect is not cured/removed or rectified to make it workable and functionable properly by the OPs, to the satisfaction of the buyer. It was also assured to the complainant that it is one of the best computer printer of the Brother Company and its performance will be good free from any trouble and defect. The complainant on the assurance of the OP No.1 made for itself and also on behalf of the OP No.2 and believing on the assurance purchased the computer printer of which details are given. The said computer printer from the very beginning suffers from the basic incurable inherent manufacturing defect and was not yielding the required results. The following defects occurred in the working and result of the computer printer from the very beginning of the purchase of the printer above said that:-
i). The color on the printing copies did not match with colors displayed on the monitor screen.
ii) The color on the printed copies used to be dull and not properly visible by the naked eye when the printer was on the normal mode.
iii) The color on the printed copies was altogether different from that displayed on the computer monitor at the time computer printer was on the best mode.
iv) The scanner was mostly not in the proper working order and later on stopped working at all.
All the above said defects in the computer printer yielded the poor quality of prints to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of the clients affecting thereby business, earning and clientage of the complainant. The matter was repeatedly reported on a toll free no.1800222422 on different dates. The complainant addressed the letter dated 08-09-2017 to the OP No.1 calling upon him to replace the faulty defective printer as the same could not be set right the despite several attempts on the part of the OP No.1. The complainant/applicant personally contacted OP No.1 bringing to his notice the above said defects who gave his Email address by SMS at 4.07 PM on 23rd September 2017. The complainant received a mail dated 09-10-2017 at 1.58 PM sent by OP No.1 demanding documents, to be sent to the head office. The copy of this mail was also forwarded to Sh. Som Nath Kayal of OP No.2 and the documents demanded by this mail were Hard copies print out where the complainant facing the problem in print colors and the soft copy of the same documents through mail. The OP No.1 was provided soft and scan copies of the printouts showing the defects in question. Thereafter the complainant assured that an Sr. engineer named Sh. Vipul Vohra of OP No.2 from Chandigarh will visit the premises of the consumer/complainant and will do the needful in the matter of removing inherent manufacturing defects in the said computer printer, but strangely enough the said Sr. engineer when contacted flatly refused to do anything needful pleading his in ability to visit Jalandhar for the purpose. Sh. Vipul Vohra Sr. Engineer from Chandigarh on a telephonic talk told that he has deputed one Sh. Harpal to visit the premises of the consumer/complainant to collect the defective printer. The said printer was delivered to Sh. Harpal and was collected by him against receipt issued by him at the time of his visit to the premises of the consumer/complainant on 25-10-2017. On 30th October 2017 an SMS was received by the complainant at 12.32 PM in which it was stated by Mr. Vipul Vohra that matter is in review. Then as no reply was received a SMS at 5.25 PM was sent by complainant that the reply is being waited since Friday. The matter kept lingering on one pretense or the other and thereafter copy of the invoice as demanded was mailed to Sh. Vipul Vohra Sr. Engineer Chandigarh, Sh. Suresh Sabarwal OP No.1 the authorized service provider of Crest & Company and besides E-mail to Sh. Somnath Kayal@brother.in., which were received by Mr. Somnath Kayal@brother.in,Sh. Vipul Vohra and OP No.1 Sh. Suresh Sabarwal duly received. On 06-11-2017 copy of invoice was mailed for making good the payment. Thereafter a mail was received from Sh.Vipin Vohra, with copies to OP No.1 and Sh. Somnath Kayal, admitting therein that ‘There is some color variation’ and regarding the refund it is stated ‘that I have to take the opinion of my seniors’. The complainant sent a reminder on 22-11- 2017 which was acknowledge by Sh. Suresh Sabarwal OP No.1 and Sh. Somnath Kayal of OP No.2 and the vague reply was sent to by them to put off the complaint. The complainant was forced to purchase another computer printer from M/s Sanjeev Vij Raj Printer Solutions, Jalandhar by invoice no. 95 dated 06-11-2017 for Rs.11,500/- resulting into undue and unnecessary expenditure because of the above said act and conduct of the OPs. The color pages on this computer printer comes out to be 56164 while the black & white pages comes out 1856 from 06-11- 2017 till 09-06-2019, which came out to be approximately one hundred and ten days i.e. average of one hundred printouts per day. Calculating the printouts @ Rs.6/- per page amount during the said duration comes out to be Rs.66,000/- clear cut unwarranted, uncalled for loss due to the deficiency and impairment in service on the part of the OP No.1. The act and conduct of the OPs No.1 and 2, the deficiency in service on their part in not providing just and proper service, envisaging envisaged under the act in not refunding the amount inspite of assurance and, keeping the matter pending till date and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the cost price of the defective computer printer having inherent incurable manufacturing defect with interest @ 18% PA. till the payment as well as compensation of Rs.66000/- for poor quality printout, non performance and non functioning Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair and defective trade practice and punitive damages.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that with a view to avoid reproduction of each and every allegation from the complaint and traversing the same, suffice it to say that contents and allegations of the complaint which are not specifically admitted hereunder and which are against the tenor of this reply may be deemed as specifically denied by the OPs. The OPs say that the averments contained in the complaint are not admitted and each and every statement, submission, contention, pleading and averment contained in the complaint, which is contrary to, or inconsistent with, what is stated in this written statement, as if the same were specifically traversed and denied herein. It is further averred that the present complaint filed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable both in law and on facts against the OPs and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs in favour of the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. No report from any technical expert regarding any inherent manufacturing defect in the printer has been produced by the complainant as a prima facie proof of the alleged defect in the equipment. It is further averred that the printer purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 and manufactured by the OP No.2 does not suffer from any inherent defect and is yielding satisfactory results. The printer purchased by the complainant is not a Photo Printer, therefore, the printer cannot yield the 100% same images as appearing on the screen of the computer and slight variations in the output are natural. No guarantee and warranty that the printer would yield same images as appearing on the computer screen was ever held out to the complainant at the time of sale of the printer. The complainant is making whimsical, superfluous, false and baseless complaints regarding the quality of the printouts. The complaints have been thoroughly verified. The printer has been inspected and checked by the technical staff employed by the opposite parties and the equipment has been found to be in order. No inherent manufacturing defect has been found in the printer sold to the complainant and the opposite parties are not liable to take back the printer and to refund the cost of the printer nor any interest thereon as claimed by the claimant. The printer can be checked by any independent technically qualified person. It is denied that the quality of the printouts yielded by the printer is poor from the date of the purchase till 06.10.2017. No financial loss has been caused to the complainant by the OPs nor any mental tension, harassment, pain and agony has been caused to the complainant. After purchase of the printer from the OP No.1, the complainant had made up his mind to buy a printer of some other brand and has been finding excuses to return the used printer which is not permissible under the sale terms of the opposite parties. No buy back guarantee has been issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have been requesting the complainant to take back his printer but the complainant is insisting upon refund of the price of the printer along with interest and damages and has filed the instant false complaint to pressurize the opposite parties to concede and succumb to his unjustified demands. It is further averred that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed and misrepresented the true facts. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OPs. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the printer with 12 months warranty by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel OPs No.1 and 2 very minutely.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Brother Company’s Printer, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.11,400/-. The warranty card has been proved as Ex.C-2. It has specifically been mentioned in it that all the products carry standard one year warranty or 30000 prints from the date of purchase, whichever is earlier. The complainant has alleged that from the very beginning the computer printer started suffering from the basic incurable inherent manufacturing defect as the colour on the printing copies did not match with the colours displayed on the monitor screen and it use to be dull and not properly visible by the naked eye when the printer was on the normal mode and the scanner was not in proper working order and later on stopped working at all. He has reported the matter by way of the complaints to the OP. He has proved on record the SMSs dated 20.06.2017, 21.06.2017, 04.08.2017 and 20.09.2017 Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 and shows that the complaint of the complainant was referred to the nearest service provider and time and again it has been mentioned that the problem has been rectified and closed in their system, but again the complainant has moved complaints as his issue was never resolved. The complainant has alleged that he wrote a letter to the OP for replacement of the Printer and the same has been proved as Ex.C-7. The complainant has further proved the email received from the OP Ex.C-8 seeking the documents to be sent to the Head Office, which was sent by the complainant to the OP. Even the printer was received by the OP for checking vide Ex.C-9 and again email was sent to the OP, which was replied by the OP that ‘I am in review call back later’. Again, reminder was sent by the complainant for the refund of the printer, which has been proved as Ex.C-11 and the reply to the email was sent by the OP, vide Ex.C-12 informing the complainant that there is some colour variation and regarding the refund, he has to take the opinion of his seniors. Again the complainant sent reminder to the OP, vide Ex.C-13 and when no reply was received, he was forced to purchase another computer printer, vide Invoice Ex.C14.
7. The contention of the OP is that the printer purchased by the complainant was Inkjet Printer and not a Photo Printer. The OP sent an email to the complainant regarding this also. He has proved on record the reply Ex.OW-1 and the reply to the reminder was also sent to the complainant informing him that the case has been forwarded to the Brother International for necessary action. The OP has further alleged that there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant nor the same has been proved by the complainant.
8. Though, the OPs have alleged that there is no manufacturing defect, but they have admitted that there is a colour variation in the printing of the copies. The reason for colour variation has not been explained by the OPs. The OPs have taken much time to discuss with their management to resolve the problem, but the problem could not be resolved rather the scanner of the printer stopped working as per the allegations of the complainant. The OPs have nowhere stated the reasons for not working of the scanner. This clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The emails produced on record by the complainant clearly show that the employees of the OPs were ready to replace/refund the printer, but they had to discuss with their management, clearly shows that there was some defect that is why there was a move to refund the amount or for the replacement of the printer. For not guiding the consumer properly and not resolving the issue, is a deficiency in service by the OPs when it is their duty and responsibility to provide the products without defects and to guide and help the consumers properly in case of any problem, being suffered by the consumers. The complainant, when was not satisfied with the services of the OPs and the issue regarding his printer was not being resolved by the OP, he was forced to purchase new printer, which has been proved by the complainant by proving the Invoice Ex.C-1. So, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount of the Printer to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective Printer to the OPs at the time of receiving the award amount. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.8000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
14.06.2023 Member President
