Haryana

Ambala

CC/51/2019

Kapil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Epson India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Jain

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no. : 51 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution : 18.02.2019.

                                                          Date of decision     : 21.03.2022.

         

Kapil Kumar son of Hari Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Khudda Kalan, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Epson India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director having its head office at 12^th Floor, The Millenia, Tower A, No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Banglore-560008.
2. M/s Thapar Trades, 198-199-200, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt. through its Proprietor.
3. Epson Service Center, Unisol Computers (EDEL 62), Shop No. 62-63, CNI Chuch Compound, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt., through its authorized person/Manager.         

 

                                                                              ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Puneet Mittal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3.

                   OP No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.04.2019       

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the printer with a new one with new warranty or to refund the total cost of product with interest from the date of purchase till its realisation.
2. To pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for, mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.       Brief facts of the case are that that complainant purchased a Epson Inkjet Printer Model No.M 200 vide serial No.S2LY128532, amounting to Rs. 12,800/- vide Invoice No.1042 dated 22-02-2017 for personal use from the OP no.2, who is the authorized dealer of the OP no.1. OP no.1 is the manufacturer and the respondent no.3 is the authorized service centre of Epson Printers manufactured by the OP no.1. From the very beginning, started creating problem and it suffered from manufacturing defect due to which there was problem of coming of blank pages & lining printed pages. On checking, OP no.3 told the complainant that there was problem in the head cable of the printer which is replaced and further assured him that now the printer will work properly and returned back the printer to him without any proper diagnose on 11.04.2017, but even after replacing the head cable, the same problem remains and then he again approached the OP No.3 for his grievance and it asked the complainant to leave his printer with them for diagnose of the problem and the complainant having no other option handed over the printer to the OP no.3. OP no.3 further asked him to inquire about his printer after about 4-5 days but did not issue any job sheet regarding the same despite asking by the complainant for the same. Thereafter about 4-5 days, when the complainant approached the OP no.3 regarding his printer, then OP no.3 returned back the printer to him with the assurance that they had removed the defect and now there will be no problem in the printer. After some time, said printer started giving same problem again and was not working, then again the complainant brought it to knowledge of OP no. 3 regarding above problem in the month of August, 2017.  Again the printer was retained for about ten days by the respondent no.3 and then gave back the printer to complainant after repairing the defect. The complainant approached the OP no.3 and asked him the printer needs to be replaced but OP No.3 has denied to replace and returned back the printer to the complainant without removing the default and since then the printer is with the complainant which is of no use for the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, suppressed with clean hands etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant contacted OP No.2 for some problem persisting in the printer. But it is totally false that the printer has got any manufacturing defect. As a matter of fact, there was a problem of lining on the printed pages and the same was only due to improper insertion of the printing ink roll by the complainant. At the time of inspection of the printer, there was no manufacturing defect in the printer. The service engineer had duly offered the complainant to repair the printer free of costs despite of fact that the complainant did not produce the purchase bill of printer only as a mark of goodwill of the company. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Commission, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.04.2019.

5.                 Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1  & 3 has made a statement that written version of OPs No.1 & 3 be read as evidence of OPs and closed the evidence of OPs No.1 & 3.  

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on 22.02.2017, complainant purchased the printer in question from the OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1. Few days after the purchase of the printer, problem of coming of blank pages and lining printed pages. Complainant requested to OPs to resolve his problem but despite several visited before the OPs, again the problem with the printer in question was not resolved.

8.                The learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 have submitted that there was a problem of lining on the printed pages and the same was only due to improper insertion of the printing ink roll by the complainant. At the time of inspection of the printer, there was no manufacturing defect in the printer. The service engineer had duly offered the complainant to repair the printer free of costs despite of fact that the complainant did not produce the bill of printer only as a mark of goodwill of the company. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant went un-rebutted as the OP No.2 inspite of service of the notice has preferred not to appear before this Commission. Meaning thereby, OP No.2 has nothing to say in their defence.  

9.                The plea of the complainant is that there is no manufacture defect in the printer in question. Thus onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the printer is upon the complainant but he failed to discharge the onus by leading cogent evidence. The complainant did not produce any expert evidence to either show the nature of defect or proof of manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to prove that the printer purchased by him suffered from any manufacturing defect. In this way, complainant has failed to prove his case. Thus we are of the view that there is no substance in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 21.03.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)          (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                Member                President

 

 

Present:       Sh. Shekhar Bansal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.                              OPs No.1&2 proceeded against exparte.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dispose of. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 10.02.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                         President