DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 538/2016 Date of Institution : 24.05.2016 Date of Decision : 17.07.2017 Sukhdev Singh son of Jeet Singh resident of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar, Ward No. 3, Handiaya, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant Versus 1. Epson India Corporate Office, 12th Floor, The Millennia Tower A, No. 1 Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore through its Prop./Authorized Signatory. 2. Mohil Computers Patti Road, Barnala-148101 through its Prop./ Authorized Signatory Mr. Ramandeep Singh. …Opposite Parties Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant Sh. RK Singla counsel for opposite party No. 1. Sh. KR Goyal counsel for opposite party No. 2. Quorum.- 1. Shri S.K. Goel : President 2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member 3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member ORDER (SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT): The complainant Sukhdev Singh has filed the present complaint against Epson India Corporate Office, Bangalore opposite party No. 1 and Mohil Computers, Patti Road, Barnala opposite party No. 2 under Consumer Protection Act 1986 (In short as Act). 2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Photostat Machine/Printer made of Epson Company having its model No. EPSON Printer L220 from opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. 119 dated 7.9.2015 for Rs. 10,400/-. It is also pleaded that the said machine was purchased for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. 3. It is alleged that in the month of April 2016 the said machine stopped to work due to some technical defect when it was used by the complainant for photostat. This machine was having a warranty of one years and therefore the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to remove the defect of the said machine. The machine was handed over to the opposite party No. 2 as advised by them. However the opposite party No. 2 refused to repair the said machine/printer without giving any reason and asked to approach the opposite party No. 1. Then the complainant approached to opposite party No. 1 by telephonically and the officers of the opposite party No. 1 assured that it will be repaired or replaced very soon but invain. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant approached many times to the opposite party No. 2 requesting to repair the same or to replace with a new one or to return the cost but to no effect. It is therefore alleged that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 1) For directing the opposite parties to replace the said Photostat machine/printer with new one or to return the amount of Rs. 10,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no cause of action, that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, complaint is vague, not maintainable, estoppel and locus standi. 5. On merits it is submitted that the printer in question was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 on 7.9.2015 on credit basis. That at the time of sale of the said printer, a booklet was supplied mentioning the manner of using the printer and the ink which should be used. Moreover a cap is fitted on the ink tank and on the said tank it is clearly printed that Epson cannot guarantee the quality or liablity of non genuine ink. That the use of non genuine ink or any other Epson ink not specified for this product may cause damage and then it will not cover under the warranty. It is further submitted that the complainant brought the said printer in the office of the opposite party No. 2 alleging that the printer stopped to work. Immediately the respondent sent the mechanic for the repair of the printer. On 21.4.2016, the said mechanic called on the complainant and checked the said printer as per norms and found that the complainant was using non genuine ink and the said mechanic gave remarks on the checking report in the presence of the complainant that customer is using non genuine inks so warranty void. It is further submitted that the customer was informed that the printer will be repaired on charges basis. It is further submitted that the complainant has voluntarily and knowingly violated the warranty norms of the company so the opposite parties are not liable for the said defect. It is further submitted that since the complainant used the said printer smoothly for more than 7 months which shows that there is no manufacturing defect. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 6. The opposite party No. 2 have also filed the written version taking legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, that the printer was purchased for commercial purpose and complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. 7. On merits it is submitted that opposite party No. 2 sold the said photostat machine on 3.9.2015 on credit basis and complainant promised to pay the amount within one month but has not paid any amount till date. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 had told the complainant that there is one year warranty which is provided by the manufacturer subject to the terms and conditions printed on the warranty card. However, they have denied that the printer in question was having any technical defect. In fact the complainant had been using non genuine inks to save money which caused damage to the device. They have denied the other allegations of complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 8. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of voter card Ex.C-3, copy of Epson Warranty Ex.C-4, copy of caste certificate Ex.C-5, affidavit of Lali Singh Ex.C-6, affidavit of Nazam Singh Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence copy of bill Ex.OP-1/1, copies of warranty card Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5, affidavit of Ramandeep Singh Ex.OP-1/6, affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Manager Ex.OP-1/7 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 has not tendered any document in their evidence. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 11. The main relief asked by the complainant is to replace the printer/photostat machine in question with a new one or to return the price of the said printer/photostat machine. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that there was a technical defect and the complainant approached the opposite party within the warranty period and therefore the printer/photostat machine is liable to be replaced. 13. In order to prove that the said machine is having a manufacturing defect, the complainant has placed on record the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit the complainant has placed on record invoice Ex.C-2 dated 7.9.2015 showing the purchase of one Epson Printer L220 for Rs. 10,400/- from Mohil Computers opposite party No. 2. Ex.C-4 is the brochure regarding this printer and it contains the warranty coverage of one year or 15,000 prints whichever comes first. The complainant has also placed the affidavit of one Lali Singh Ex.C-6 showing that the printer was purchased for earning livelihood by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 and the complainant paid the price in cash. Ex.C-7 is the affidavit of one Nazam Singh who has stated that in the month of April 2016 the said photostat machine stopped working due to some technical defect and then he alongwith the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to remove the said defect. However, opposite party No. 2 refused to repair the said printer and gave one phone number to call the opposite party No. 1 for repair of the said photostat machine. It is further submitted that since the opposite party failed to remove the defect in the said machine despite asking many times and this shows that the machine in question is having a manufacturing defect, therefore opposite parties be directed to replace the same with a new one or to refund the price of the said printer/photostat machine. 14. On the other hand the opposite party has specifically submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that the product in question was having a manufacturing defect and moreover this case is not related to any manufacturing defect. The complainant has violated the warranty norms of the company as the complainant used the non genuine ink which might have caused damage and therefore, it is not covered under the warranty. It is also submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 15. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased printer in question vide invoice Ex.C-2 for Rs. 10,400/- from the opposite party No. 2. It is also not disputed that the said printer is having a warranty of one year from its purchase and the defect was also within the warranty period. Perusal of the said record shows that the complainant used the said printer smoothly for about seven months and thereafter he lodged the complaint with the opposite party No. 1. It is also the case of the complainant that in the month of April 2016 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to remove the defect in the said machine. As the opposite party failed to remove the defect or repair the same then the complainant filed the present complaint to replace the said printer with a new one or any other relief which the complainant is entitled to. 16. It is however contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in order to replace the said machine it was necessary to prove that the printer in question was having a manufacturing defect and without expert/technical evidence it cannot be said that the printer in question was having the manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the complainant has not placed on record any technical report on the record to show that the said machine was not working due to technical defect. As the onus to prove manufacturing defect was upon the complainant but the complainant failed to prove the same by leading cogent or reliable evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite parties are liable to replace the same or to refund the price of the defective printer. 17. This view finds support from the citation Sushila Automobiles Versus Dr. Birendra Narain and others 3 (2010) CPJ-130 (NC) wherein it was observed as.- “At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential in put. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in a number of cases have held that unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts. When the present case is considered in his backdrop, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Merely because the car has been taken to the workshop of the petitioner-dealer several times or because a number of letters/complaints had been addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the opposite party- manufacturing company, it will not by itself amount manufacturing defect.” 18. Further in case Jose Philip Mampilli Vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Another I (2004) CLT-855 the principle of law laid down was to the effect that the manufacturer could not be ordered to replace the car or refund its price, merely because some defects appear, which could be rectified or defective parts could be replaced under warranty. 19. Now the next question arises whether the printer in question is liable to be repaired free of cost as it is within the warranty period. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has used the non genuine ink so the warranty is void and the printer can be repaired on charges basis. In their support they have placed on record report Ex.OP-1/4 wherein in the remarks column it is mentioned that “customer is using non genuine ink so warranty void. Inform to customer your printer will repair on charges base.” It is signed by one Ramandeep Singh. However perusal of the said report does not show that the same is made in the presence of the complainant or any other authorized Agent of the complainant. It is signed by Ramandeep Singh who is the proprietor of opposite party No. 2. No affidavit of any technical person who had checked the said printer proving the said report has been placed by the opposite party. In the absence of any cogent evidence and affidavit of technical expert of the opposite party, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the complainant for the said defect. 21. In case II (2016) CPJ-19 (NC) Negi Sign Systems and Suppliers Company Versus Rijulize Jacob, printer was purchased by the complainant and the machine was not functioning properly. District Forum directed to rectify the defect without any service charges. On filing appeal Hon'ble State Commission directed refund of purchase price. However, the Hon'ble National Commission held that since no technical evidence was produced by the complainant to prove manufacturing defect and if only a part of the printer was defected then complainant was entitled to replacement of that part and not to refund of the price thereof. 22. In another case III (2016) CPJ-126 Rahul Bank Versus Dell India Pvt. Ltd and Another, a Laptop was purchased by the complainant and the complainant within the warranty period approached the seller for repair but repair was not done. District Forum directed to repair the Laptop of the complainant without fail or replace it if it cannot be repaired. The Hon'ble State Commission also confirmed the view of District Forum. 24. In view of the law laid down in the above said citations this Forum is of the view that the opposite parties cannot refuse the repair of the printer/photostat machine in question free of charges. 25. The second argument raised by the opposite party is that the complainant has purchased the said printer on credit basis and till today no payment was made. This contention in this complaint is untenable, as the opposite party has the right to approach the Civil Court for the recovery of the price of the printer from the complainant, if any as per law. 26. As a result of above discussion, present complaint is partly accepted against the opposite parties to the extent that opposite parties are directed to repair the printer/photostat machine in question of the complainant free of charges within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If they find that some parts of device cannot be made in working condition and it is beyond repair then opposite parties are directed to replace the said defective parts with a new one free of charges. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM: 17th Day of July 2017
(S.K. Goel) President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member | 
