| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.196 of 02.09.2020 Decided on : 13-07-2023 Harpreet Singh, aged about 34 years, son of S. Jalour Singh, resident of village Smagh, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri .Muktsar Sahib. - ........Complainant
Versus EPSON Inida Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office: 12th Floor, The Millenia, Tower A, No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Banflore 560 008, through its CMD/General Manager. EPSON Authorize Service Centre, SCO 15, Phase-1, Model Town, BATHINDA-151 005, through its owner/Incharge Lakhwinder Singh.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Ish Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Harpreet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against EPSON Inida Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that the complainant has purchased one EPSON 2130 Printer having Serial No. VJ5K222722 for Rs.7200/-, duly manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.1 and at the time of purchase of the aforesaid printer, it was conveyed to the complainant that the ONLINE Warranty of the aforesaid printer is one year, which is provided by opposite party No.1 On Site and that during the period of one year, if any defect arise in the aforesaid printer, opposite party no.1 shall provide On Site Warranty or through Service Centers of opposite party No.1 including opposite party no.2 and shall get the defect removed free of cost and that no amount shall be charged either on account of defective part or on account of service charges. In the mid of June, 2020, there arose a defect in the aforesaid printer and the aforesaid printer stopped working. Accordingly, the complainant tried his best to lodge a complaint at tollfree number of opposite party No.1, but could not succeed. So, the complainant took the aforesaid printer with opposite party No.2 (an authorized service centre of opposite party No.1), who after preliminary inspection, found the aforesaid printer well within warranty period and accordingly, they got lodged the complaint at tollfree number of opposite party No.1, however, both the opposite parties have failed to send any Engineer for the inspection of the printer and to get the defect removed and on making call to opposite party No.2, one female representative of opposite party No.2 flatly refused to provide ON SITE service andd rather pressurized the complainant either to bring the printer at service centre or to contact with opposite party No.l. It is alleged that since the complainant was in urgent need of printer, so under compelled circumstances, he took the aforesaid printer with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 kept the aforesaid printer of the complainant with it without making any inspection in the presence of the complainant nor issued any job-sheet and rather advised the complainant to visit after 3 days to get the duly repaired printer. After 3 days, the complainant made a telephonic call to opposite party No.2 to know the fate of his printer, then it was conveyegd by the female representative of opposite party No.2 that the printer has already been repaired, however, it took 2 days more to return/deliver to the complainant and accordingly, the complainant suspected some foul play and then he again contacted opposite party No.1 at tollfree number, but to the utter surprise of the complainant that he was conveyed that the printer of the complainant is not within warranty. It is further alleged that again the complainant approached Opposite party No.2, but the concerned representative rudely misbehaved with the Complainant by conveying that since the printer is not within warranty period, so the complainant has to pay for the cost of part and service charges and since then, the aforesaid printer is lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant made various correspondence with opposite party no.1 through mails, but in response thereof, the complainant always received vague reply and opposite party No.1 also wrote to the complainant about the report of opposite party No.2 to the effect that `This printer was received in service centre in no power condition and found opened by third party, print head's serial number (Print Head id) which was fixed in the printer is not matching printer's serial number, print head which was fix in printer was 3 years old where as the printer is only one year old, that's why warranty has been rejected. The complainant alleged that defence taken by both the opposite parties is very vague. First of all, at the time of purchase of any item, as a layman, how a customer can judge about the parts assembled in the product as the aforesaid printer was purchased in duly packed condition and secondly at the time of handing over the aforesaid printer to opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 never inspected the aforesaid printer in the presence of the complainant nor conveyed anything about the non genuineness of its Head and the foul play, If any, is on the part of opposite party No.2, for which opposite party No.1 is also liable. It is not out of place to mention here that both the opposite parties are putting the liability upon each other, but no one has been giving any positive response to the complainant and rather opposite party No.2 illegally kept the aforesaid printer with it and since then, the complainant has been running post to pillar. It is also alleged that ultimately, the complainant got served a registered legal notice dated 22.07.2020 upon the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. Ish Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Bathinda thereby calling upon the opposite parties, to replace the aforesaid printer with new one or to make the refund of cost the aforesaid printer, alongwith interest and costs, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the printer with new one or to refund of its price i.e. Rs.7200/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigations. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written written reply raising legal objections that the abovesaid complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, admissions, omissions and acquiescence because the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the warranty clause and got the Printer in question repaired from outside i.e. from unauthorized service centre and got the Head of the Printer changed from outside and as such the printer is no more under warranty. The complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands rather he has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from the Hon'ble Commission and has grossly twisted the facts as per his own convenience. The intricate and complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the present case which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence and cross examination of the witnesses which is not possible through the summary procedure before this Hon'ble commission and as such this Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint rather the Hon'ble Civil Court is competent to decide the same. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is pleaded that the warranty clause is subject to the strict compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty clause. The true facts are that the complainant never visited the service centre i.e. opposite party no.2 as alleged rather the complainant had lodged a toll free complaint regarding defect in the printer and on this, an authorized service engineer of the opposite parties checked the said printer and it was found that the aforesaid Printer was got opened and repaired by the complainant from outside i.e. from unauthorized service center or private mechanic at his own and as such the concerned representative of the opposite parties told the complainant that the printer is no more under warranty due to the violation of terms and conditions of warranty clause. It is admitted that the complainant brought the printer in question to the office of the opposite party No.2 but rest of the para as stated is wrong, hence denied. It is specifically denied that the opposite party no.2 retained the printer of the complainant without issuing any Job Sheet as alleged rather the complainant never visited the service center of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 never kept the printer of the complainant as alleged rather as mentioned above, the complainant had got the printer repaired and got head of the same replaced from outside and as such the printer is no more under warranty clause. AS such the authorized representative of the opposite parties had informed the complainant about the same and the complainant never visited the service center i.e. opposite party no.2 with the printer. The complainant was already told that the printer is not within the warranty period. Opposite parties are still ready to repair the printer and to provide services to the complainant In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 2.9.2020 (Ex.C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagjit Kumar dated 7.1.2022 (Ex. OP-1/1) and document (Ex. OP-1/2). We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant purchased the printer from opposite parties, but the said printer suffered from some defect in June 2020, but opposite parties kept the printer with them and thereafter refused to repair it with the excuse that the defect is not covered under warranty having been opened by third party and printer is lying with opposite parties in defective condition. Refusal to replace or repair of printer amounts to deficiency in services. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has argued that the complainant had got the printer repaired from outside. As such, he has violated the warranty conditions and accordingly, refusal to repair the printer does not amount to deficiency in services. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the printer from opposite parties and said printer suffered from some defect in June 2020 and repair was refused by opposite parties with the reason that the said printer has been opened by third party. A perusal of record shows that opposite parties have not placed on record report of any expert or his affidavit to prove that the printer was opened by some third party and there was mis-matching of printer serial number from the serial number of printer's head. Accordingly, this Commission is of the view that refusal to repair the printer amounts to deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair the printer of the complainant in their possession, without charging any amount. The complainant is held entitled to Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigations. However, plea of the complainant regarding replacement of printer is declined as he has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the printer through any report of any expert. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 13-07-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
