Order-10.

Date-08/12/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the Complainant in short is that he possesses one printer of Epson brand and presently it is not useable due to some electrical problem and some functional problems as well and, as a result, his communication and internet of printing connectivity is restrained heavily. The Complainant contacted an Epson authorized service centre being OP No. 1 in this case. OP informed the Complainant that the Company has stopped manufacturing and marketing of the model and OP No. 1 also advised him to contact with Hi-tech Service at 10 A Hospital Street, Kolkata-700072. The Complainant went there on 26.02./2016 and the said service centre refused to repair the set as it was out of warranty period and also stated that Company stopped production of the said model couple of years ago. The said service centre also advised him to buy a new one or sell to a trash dealer / or to throw away.

The Complainant states that it may cause damage or pollution to the environment. The Complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of the OP and has prayed for compensation.

          None appear either of the OPs in spite of service of Summons. None of the OPs have filed any W.V. or contested the case. The case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

Points for decision

1)       Whether OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainants?

2)       Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

          We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of email dated 23.02.2016, copy of the letter dated 16.02.2016.

It appears that the subject printer is out of guarantee / warranty period and the Company concerned stopped supply, manufacturing and marketing of the said model. It is given to understand to us that the OP No. 1 refused to repair the subject printer as the Company stopped production and marketing of this model and as such OP No. 1 could not repair the same. We find that the subject printer is out of guarantee or warranty period. It is not also stated in the petition of complaint on which date, month and year the Complainant purchased the same.  It is not denied by the Complainant that the Company stopped manufacturing and marketing of the said model of the printer. So it is quite natural no question of repairing arises as there are no parts available in the market. Moreover, the subject printer as it is stated is out of guarantee / warranty period. We do not think that OP No. 1 either harassed or committed any breach or deficiency of duties. The Consumer Forum is to deal with the deficiency of service. We find no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1. The question of pollution or ‘e-waste’ is not within the purview of the consideration of the Consumer Redressal Forum. We think that the Complainant may take up the matter with the Pollution Control Authority or with the Green Bench or with any other competent authority. We are afraid, we cannot extend our helping hand in this regard.

          In result, the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed ex parte but on merit against the OPs, being not maintainable in CP Act, 1986.

          We make no order as to cost.