Punjab

Sangrur

CC/401/2016

Yashwinder Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Epson India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 401

Instituted on:  16.05.2016

                                                                        Decided on:    04.11.2016

 

 

Yashwinder Goyal son of Sat Pal Goyal, resident of F-29, Street No.3, Officer Colony, Gurudwara Nankiana Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     Epson India, Corporate Office: 12^th Floor,The Millenia, Tower-A, No.1, Murphy Road, Uloor, Bangalore, through its Managing Director.

2.     DEL-39, Sanbroz, Computers EDEL39, 34-35-A, 1^st Floor, New Budha Dal Complex, Patiala through its Proprietor/partner (authorized service centre of EPSON).

3.     Jindia Computers and Electronics, Jind Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES 1&2    :              Shri R.K.Singla, Advocate                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3              :      Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Yashwinder Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 30.5.2015 the complainant purchased one Epson 2200 printer from the OP number 3 for Rs.10,150/- vide bill number 47 dated 30.5.2015 with one year guarantee against any manufacturing defect.  The case of the complainant is that in the moth of February, 2015, the said printer gave problem ‘not discharging blue ink’ on the page as and when complainant gave print command, as such the complainant approached the OP number 3 for removing the defect in the printer.  As such, the employee of the OP number 2 visited the complainant and checked the printer and removed the defect with an assurance that the defect will not be there in the printer in future. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2016, the said printer gave the same problem and as such the complainant immediately registered his complaint with the OP number 2, but till 15.4.2016 no one came from the side of the Ops for removing the defect.  It is further stated that on 15.4.2016 the employee of the OP number 2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the printer and told that the printer is out of warranty as its warranty was only upto 15000 pages.  It is stated that no warranty card was ever supplied to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the printer along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant ha not come to the Forum with clean hands as the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation.  On merits, sale and purchase of the printer is admitted. However, it is stated that on 20.2.2016, the employee of the OP number 2 visited the house of the complainant to remove the defect and found that there was setting problem which was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is stated that the Ops are only responsible to provide service for one year or upto the 15000 pages, whichever is less. It is stated further that upto 20.2.2016 the complainant had already printed pages upto 13527 and when the printer was checked on 15.4.2016 it had already crossed the limit of warranty i.e. 15000 pages and this fact was very well known to the complainant. As such, it is stated that the Ops number 1 and 2 are not at all responsible for providing any service to the complainant after the warranty period.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 4.7.2016, as the Op number 3 did not appear despite service.

 

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of collection slip, Ex.C-3 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit,  Ex.OP-1&2/2 warranty terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the Epson printer from Op number 3 vide bill dated 30.5.2015 for Rs.10,150/-, as is evident from the copy of bill on record as Ex.C-3.  It is also an admitted fact that the printer became defective on 20.02.2016 and the same was set right by changing the settings by the Ops.  

 

7.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the printer again became defective in the month of March, 2016 and lodged the complaint by the complainant on 15.4.2016 with the Ops, as such the engineer of the Op approached the complainant and after checking the printer it was told that the printer is out of warranty as it has a warranty of one year or 15000 pages, which ever is earlier.  Now, the question which arises for determination is whether the printer was/is under warranty or the same was out of warranty on 15.4.2016 at the time of checking the same.

 

8.             To support the contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has drawn our attention towards the copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP1&2/2, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that ‘the duration of the warranty (warranty period) is as follows i.e. 12 months or 15000 pages, whichever is earlier from the date of purchase.  Further the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has drawn our attention towards the collection slip, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2, which clearly shows that the printer had already printed 13527 copies on 20.2.2016 and further on 15.4.2016, the reading was 15376 pages, meaning thereby the warranty of the printer had already elapsed on 15.4.2016, when the printer had already printed 15376 pages.  To support such a contention, Ops have also produced the affidavit Ex.Op1&2/1 of Shri Ashok Kumar Das.  In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that on 15.4.2016, the printer had already exhausted the warranty as it had already printed 15376 pages, whereas the warranty was only upto 15000 pages or one year from the date of purchase, whichever is earlier. 

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is therefore dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.       

Pronounced.

 

                November 4, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member