Haryana

Ambala

CC/365/2018

Ashok Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.S.I.T - Opp.Party(s)

L.R. Saini

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 365 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  02.11.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  25.11.2019.

 

Ashok Chhabra son of Late Sh. Sona Ram, resident of village Saha, Sub Tehsil Saha, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                  Versus

1. G.S.I.T. Point, Guru Kirpa Market, Link Road, Saha, Authorized Dealer of EPSON India Pvt. Ltd. Through its proprietor- Prince Kumar son of Sh. Sohan Singh.
2. Epson Service Centre, E.D.E.L. 62, Unisol Computers, Shop No.62, 63, CNI Church Compound, Nigar Wali Gali, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt. Through its proprietor.
3. Epson India Pvt. Ltd. 12^th Floor, Village the Millenia, Tower-A, No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Banglore, 560008.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri L.R. Saini, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Defence of  OP No.1 already struck off vide order dated                                        28.02.2019.

                   Ms. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 and 3.

 

 

ORDER:     SH. 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 the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- i.e., cost of the printer.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having a computer for his personal use as well as for his children and the complainant was in need of printer for the study purpose of his children and for this complainant contacted OP No.1 for the purchase of a printer. OP No.1 suggested him to purchase EPSON company printer. On 08.08.2018, complainant purchased the EPSON printer for a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with GST etc. and when complainant asked for the bill, OP No.1 told the complainant that at present he is not having the bill book as he has lost the bill book and will provide the bill in the evening or on the next day. After purchase of the printer, complainant put the said printer on function on the same day, but the printer was found not working properly and complainant contacted the OP No.1. On which OP No.1 assured the complainant that he is sending the service engineer to get the printer set properly and also assured that he is sending the bill, but no service engineer visited nor the bill was sent by the OP No.1. Complainant repeatedly, requested the OP No.1 for setting the printer properly and for the bill, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the legitimate request of the complainant. Ultimately, OP No.1 refused to give the bill and to the set the printer properly. OP No.1 told the complainant to contact the OP No.2 regarding problem in the printer. Finding no other alternative, complainant contacted OP No.2, upon which OP No.2 sent their service engineer and on checking the printer he gave the report vide his job card regarding defect in the printer i.e. “WO Power in Printer Main Board and print head issue in printer. Customer will return the printer to the Dealer.”  As per the report of the service engineer of the company, there is a manufacturing defect in the printer and the defect cannot be removed by repair. Complainant again visited OP No.1 for return of the printer as well as for return of the amount of Rs.15,000/- or to replace the printer with new as it was in the warranty period, but OP No.1 flatly refused to do so. On dated 29.09.2018, complainant issued a legal notice against OPs to look into the matter, but same was of no avail. The printer in question is within warranty from the date of delivery/purchase and the OPs are bound to replace the same, but they did not do so, therefore, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel. However, on 28.02.2019, none has put in appearance on behalf of the OP No.1 and defence of OP No.1 was struck off vide order dated 28.02.2019.

                   The OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and have filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; concealing of true and material facts etc. On merits, it is admitted that just after the receipt of the information of problem persisting in the printer of the complainant, OP No.2 sent its service Engineer to the complainant and on checking, service engineer told the complainant that there was a problem in main head or card and the same can be repaired if the printer is brought to the service centre i.e. OP No.2 and the printer can be replaced if the date of purchase on the bill of the printer is not more than one month old prior to intimation of defect to the service centre. Upon asking by the service engineer for producing the bill of the printer, complainant told that he is not having the same. As per the policy, the printer of the complainant could not be replaced to a new one. At the time of inspection, there was no manufacturing defect in the printer. The service engineer had duly offered the complainant to repair the printer free of cost despite of the fact that the complainant did not produce the bill of printer only as a mark of goodwill of the company. Further stated that at the time of inspection of the printer, the representative of OP No.2 had duly informed the complainant that the printer is in repairable state and had also offered to repair the same free of cost, as a mark of goodwill. OP No.2 and 3 have even offered to repair the printer without any charge despite the fact that the complainant had not produced any bill of the same. The OPs No.2 and 3 have not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 vide her separate statement dated 06.09.2019, stated that she does not want to tender any documents and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and 3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 & 3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a EPSON printer from the OP No.1 on 08.08.2018, with one year warranty, but OP No.1 has not provided the bill to the complainant.  However, on the same day when the complainant installed the printer, same was found not working and complainant made the complaint to OP No.1. OP No.1 assured him that, it is going to send the service engineer for the proper installation of the printer and also sending the bill, but neither the service engineer visited the complainant nor any bill was given to the complainant. On asking of OP No.1, complainant visited the OP No.2 regarding the problem of the printer, who send its service engineer and on checking he reported that “WO Power in Printer Main Board and print head issue in printer. Customer will return the printer to the Dealer.” vide its job card dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure C1). On this complainant visited the OP No.1 to replace the printer to refund the cost of the printer, but OP No.1 flatly refused to do so. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing the service.

                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has argued that on the complaint of complainant, they sent a service engineer to check the printer and on checking service engineer told that problem exists in main head or card and same can be repaired if the printer is brought to the service centre. Upon asking, complainant failed to produce the bill of the printer and without which the printer cannot be replaced or repaired as per the policy of the company and as such they are not deficient in providing the service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against them by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 and 3 has also placed reliance upon case law titled as Ravi Manna & Anr. Versus Basudev Koley, I (2015) CPJ 525 (NC), Nirmal Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd & Ors., Lakhwinder Singh @ Pamma & Ors. IV (2014) CPJ 756 (NC).

8.                From the perusal of job card created on 26.09.2018 (Annexure C-1), it is clear that warranty period of the printer was of 12 months and the end date of the warranty of the printer in question was 08.08.2019. However, the complaint was lodged with OP No.2 on 26.09.2018, which shows that the printer in question was under warranty when the complainant lodged the complaint with OPs. The plea of the complainant is that the printer in question was not working properly on the same day when the printer in question was purchased and in this regard, he contacted the OP No.1. On the other hand, the OPs No.2 & 3 has taken the plea that they can only repair the printer or to replace it on the receipt of the bill of the printer. The moot question for consideration before this Forum is that after how many months   from the purchase of printer in question, it became defective. However, it is pertinent to  mention here that the OP No.1 failed to appear before  this Forum to specifically deny the contentions of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint nor lead the evidence. However, OP No.2 and 3 also failed to mention  their written statement about after how many months from the purchase of the printer in question, it  became defective nor lead any evidence. From the Annexure C-1 it is clear that the service engineer has reported  that that  there is  a problem in power  in printer main  board and print head and customer will return the printer to the dealer. In these circumstances, the version of the complainant with regard to defect of the printer occurred in on 08.08.2018 i.e. on the same day of the purchase of the printer, remained un-rebutted. As per the report of the service engineer in Annexure C1, it is clear that  there is a manufacturing defect in the printer and same is not repairable. It  may be stated  here that  none has contested the complaint on behalf of OP No.1, as  its evidence was struck off vide order dated 28.02.2019, therefore, the contents enumerated  in the complaint  remained un-rebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.1 and thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit  and other supporting documents. Hence, the OP No.1 & 3 are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. The case law cited  by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs No. 2 & 3, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. From  the  above  mentioned facts and circumstances of the case,                                                                   it is established that the printer in question became defective within warranty period and the OP No.1 & 3 have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, OP No.1 & 3 are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. 

9.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OP No.1 & 3 and dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2. OP No.1 & 3 are directed to comply with the following directions:-

1. To replace the defective printer in question with the new one of the same model. If it is not in position to replace the printer of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- i.e. cost of the printer to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this 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 :25.11.2019.

 

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

              Member                             Member                            President