DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Monday the 25^th day of November 2024

CC.174/2022

Complainant

T. Mohanan,

Thiruvazhikat (HO),

Kannadikal, Vengeri.P.O,

Kozhikode - 673010

Opposite Parties

1.               Epson India Pvt. LTd,                                                                                                                                                                              12th Floor, The Millenia,

Tower A, No.1, Murphy Road,

Ulsoor, MG, Bangalore - 560008

2.               Shri IT Products,

Darusalam Complex,

Room No. 19/20/21,

Mavoor Road, Calicut,

Puthiyara. P.O,

Kozhikode – 673004

(OP1 By Adv. Sri. Govind. M.G, Sri. P. Rajeev and Sri. Sreeraj. T.P)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant bought an Epson colour printer from the second opposite party on 25/11/2019 paying Rs. 57,500/-. The printer was manufactured by the first opposite party. The printer showed some complaints after one year of purchase and the same were solved by the service centre. Later there developed some complicated problems for the printer like papers being taken to the printer slot in bulk instead of a single sheet, jamming of printed papers, colour printer not produced and continuous ‘tick’ ‘tick’ sound before the paper is taken by the printer for the print on the second side of the paper. There used to appear a comment highlighted in the dialogue box of the printer to the effect that the running nozzle of the printer has been clogged. The printer was not in use for some time during Covid-19 pandemic period. The above problems occurred on 08/06/2022.

3. When he tried to contact service centre, they did not attend the call. Then the call was made to the toll free number 18004250011 of the company on 09/06/2022, upon which, he was assured that the complaint would be attended within 24 hours. There was a watsapp message of the company also probed on his mobile number and had instructed the complainant to make chat about his name, serial number of the printer, complaints  etc. and accordingly the details were entered. The watsapp message showed that the complaint was registered by the company. Though it was stated that the engineer would visit and look in to the matter, nobody turned up. There was no response from the opposite parties despite repeated requests. The printer is lying idle due to the latches and negligence of the opposite parties. Even though the complainant had sent a detailed email to the company, there was no response. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying and disputing all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The purchase of the printer by the complainant is admitted. The initial complaint was filed on 25/11/2019 for minor issues and the same were settled. The complainant registered a complaint before the authorised service centre on 09/06/2022. The complainant has admitted that he had not used the printer for a very long period. The complaint was due to non-usage of printer while during lockdown period. On registering the complaint, the service engineer tried to contact the complainant several times, but the number was not reachable. As there was no response from the complainant, the complaint was closed without attending the issue. The allegation regarding delay in service is not correct. According to the first opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.
5. The notice issued from this  Commission on 27/07/2022 was duly served on the second opposite party on 30/07/2022. But the second opposite party did not respond to the notice and hence was set ex-parte on 14/09/2022. (Subsequently on 23/02/2023, second opposite party filed version).
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

  (1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite   

        parties, as alleged?

2. .  Reliefs and costs.

7. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.  No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
8. Heard.
9. Point No 1 : The first opposite party is the manufacturer of Epson colour printer. The second opposite party is the dealer. The complainant purchased Epson A3 all in one tank type printer L 1455 on 25/11/2019 from the first opposite party paying Rs. 57,500/-. The grievance projected in the complaint is that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to service/repair the printer despite repeated requests made by him and thereby there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as the result of which, monetary loss as well as mental agony  was caused to the complainant.
10. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself  examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. In the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that the warranty of the product was for one year and the complaint was reported  after 2 years. It is admitted by PW1 that the printer was not in use and was kept idle for sometime during Covid-19 pandemic period. It is also admitted by PW1 in the cross examination that after the filing of the complaint, the opposite parties had informed him that they were ready to attend the repair/service of the printer, but the request was turn down by him as the case is pending. Ext A1 is the warranty terms and conditions of Epson, Ext A2 is the tax invoice dated 25/11/2019 and Ext A3 is the copy of email.
11. That on 25/11/2019, the complainant purchased Epson colour printer manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party paying Rs. 57,500/- as per Ext A2 is admitted. That the warranty for the product was for 12 months or 80,000 prints, whichever is earlier from the date of purchase is not disputed.  It is not disputed that the complaint regarding the printer was registered on 09/06/2022, after the warranty period.
12. As already stated, the first opposite party alone contested the matter. The 2^nd opposite party opted to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. It is in evidence and is not seriously disputed by the first opposite party that till the filing of the present compliant, the complaint registered on 09/06/2022 was not attended to by the opposite parties.
13. The case tried to be setup by the first opposite party is that the service engineer tried to contact the complainant several times, but the number was not reachable and as there was no response from the complainant, the complaint was closed without attending the issue. But apart from the bald averment made in the version, the first opposite party has not taken any effort to substantiate their contention. The first opposite party has not adduced any evidence. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The first opposite party did not file any affidavit to prove the contentions of the version filed. The complainant has proved his case by leading evidence. Inspite of opportunity being provided, the first opposite party failed to lead evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the complainant. The evidence of PW1 and the documents produced show that in spite of repeated contacts and reminders, there was gross neglect on the part of the opposite parties to attend the complaint registered with regard to the printer. Of course, the complaint to the product arose after the warranty period and the complainant is bound to bear the charges for the repairs. The opposite parties have no case that the complainant was not ready to pay the repair charges. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to attend the complaint promptly as and when reported. Neglect of the opposite parties to address the concerns of the complainant over the printer in spite of repeated demands constitutes gross deficiency of service. The opposite parties are bound to repair /service the printer of the complainant. The printer which the complainant purchased spending Rs. 57,500/- was not working and lying idle due to the latches and negligence of the opposite parties. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to monetary loss,  besides mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. Point found accordingly.
14. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
    1. CC.174/2022 is allowed in part.
    2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair/service the Epson A3 all in one tank type printer L1455 of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.  It is made clear that the complainant shall be liable to pay the charges for the said repair/service.
    3. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant. 
    4. The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt  of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall carry  an interest of  9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
    5. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several.  
    6. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the  25^th  day of November, 2024.

Date of Filing: 19/07/2022

                                                   Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                                           PRESIDENT                                         MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Warranty terms and conditions of Epson.

Ext.A2 – Tax invoice dated 25/11/2019.

Ext.A3 – Copy of email.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  T. Mohanan (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

Nil.

                                                   Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                                           PRESIDENT                                         MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                   Assistant Registrar.