2. Crest and Company Jalandhar, 110-119 Sangam Complex, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar 144001. Punjab. Suresh Sabharwal Mob No.9876633533 (Crest company’s owner) Rajinder Kumar Mob. No.9815183562 (Engineer)
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. I. S. Bhatia, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a Brother company's printer (DCP-T520W) from Amazon (online website) sold by Appario Retail Private Ltd. and paid total amount Rs.14,315/-. He received product on 13-10-2021. He purchased this printer before reading carefully Brother company's brochure. After a few days when he tried to print manual two side printing function then after doing first side printing papers for second side print but second side printing output is blank pages, print random pages and loss of data. For this malfunction wasted his many output pages, data, ink and time. He tried many times, sometimes this worked and sometimes not. He faced same problem while using wired and wireless connection for printing and tried many different types of PDF files but he faced the same issue. He connected customer care chat support (02-11-2021), he discussed this problem with them, they said “Manual duplex printing available in this printer” and they arranged call back support. After few hours on call they checked his printing software and command settings. They found ever setting in his computer system as per company's recommendation. On the same day (02-11-2021) they registered his complaint B2111000575. On 06-11-2021 he received a call from engineer (Rajinder Kumar) and he asked him to connect his computer system for remote access. Through screen sharing he showed him the way of his printing commands and problem. During call he hold his call for discuss this issue with his seniors and he told him as per their seniors “Manual duplex feature is not for this printer, some of the option in this printer only for show off”. The complainant asked him to send him the same statement on mail and he agreed. He also said that Manual and automatic duplexing are same thing. However, this printer only have manual duplexing function but this will not be working in this printer. Then, (02-11-2021) he called customer care number (1800222422). Customer care executive said manual two side printing function available in this printer and again forward his concern to service center. Same day after few minutes, he received mail from their senior Suresh Sabherwal, which he mentioned manual duplex printing is not possible in this model. At the end the OP avoid to give direct answers to his questions and end the conversation with “This is not a duplex printer and this function not available in this printer”. The complainant has been suffering from loss of money, papers, waste of ink, waste of time, mental stress, misleading and harassment because of them and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the cost of the printer Rs.14,315/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss, loss of study, waste of time, mental stress to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable both in law and on facts against the OPs and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs in favour of the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. No report from any technical expert regarding any inherent manufacturing defect in the printer has been produced by the complainant as a prima facie proof of the alleged defect in the equipment. It is further averred that the complaint as framed is not maintainable. The complaint has been filed against Head Office of Brother International (OP No.1) and Crest and Company Jalandhar (OP No.2). The description of the OPs is not legally correct. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant purchased the printer manufactured by Brother International (India) Pvt. Ltd. from Amazon (Online) through Appario Retail Private Limited. The complainant has not impleaded Appario Retail Private Limited and has wrongly impleaded Crest and Company. It is further averred that the complainant has purchased Make Brother, Model DCP-T520W All-in- one Ink Tank Refill System Printer with built in Wireless technology at the cost of Rs 14,315/- from Amazon in through Appario Retail Private Limited vide Invoice dated 09.10.2021 Ex-C1 having Manual Duplex Printing Feature which means that the printer in question does not have the auto duplex printing feature and the consumer of the printer has to do it manually. When the command for Duplex Printing is given, the printer would firstly print the odd number pages and after having finished the printing of odd number pages, it would prompt the consumer to manually feed the papers again in the Paper Tray for the printing on the even number pages (overleaf the printed pages). Since the printer in question is Inkjet printer and not Laser printer, it takes time for the ink to dry-up on the printed pages. When the printed pages are fed again in the paper tray for duplex printing on the reverse side of printed pages, some of pages cling to each other due to wet ink and the printer takes up multiple pages at a time and the sequence of printing is disturbed resulting into wastage of paper for which cannot be termed as manufacturing defect and the manufacturer of the machine cannot be held liable. Much depends on the quality of the paper used for printing also. Paper with lower GSM create issue while manual duplex printing as it causes multiple pickup problem cause ink on the paper does not dry immediately after printing. The printer in question supports manual duplex not by choosing odd-even. It is selected automatically and the consumer has to turn pages in tray after getting one sided print. If the Commission allows the opposite parties to give demo of manual duplex feature, the OPs can give the demo on the printer purchased by the complainant itself. It is further averred that the printer purchased by the complainant manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 does not suffer from any inherent defect and is yielding satisfactory results. The complainant is making whimsical, superfluous, false and baseless complaints regarding the working of the manual duplex feature of the printer by mistaking it with auto duplex feature which is not available in the printer in question. There is no issue with the printer. The complainant faces issue when he gives duplex printing command manually and the printer sometimes picks up multiple pages for the reason mentioned above whereby the sequence of printing is disturbed resulting into wastage of paper and ink. The complaint of the complainant has been thoroughly verified online. No inherent manufacturing defect has been found in the printer sold to the complainant and the opposite parties are not liable to take back the printer and to refund the cost of the printer nor any interest thereon as claimed by the claimant. The printer can be checked by any independent technically qualified person. No financial loss, loss of study, waste of time, mental stress, misleading and harassment has been caused to the complainant nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor any unfair trade practice has been adopted by the opposite parties. No buy back guarantee has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed and misrepresented the true facts. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OPs nor any unfair trade practice. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the printer for a sum of Rs.14,315/- is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Brother company's printer (DCP-T520W) from Amazon online website sold by Appario Retail Private Ltd. It is also admitted and proved fact that he paid Rs.14,315/- for the printer, which has been proved as Ex.C-1. He has proved on record the brochure which he allegedly read carefully prior to purchasing the printer, the same has been proved as Ex.C-2. The grouse of the complainant is that after few days of the purchase of the printer, when he tried to print manual two side printing function, then after first side printing output is blank pages, print random pages and loss of data. For this malfunction, he contacted the OP’s service centre and had a conversation and talk with engineer and executive of the OP and filed complaint also, but his problem was not resolved. The complainant has contacted customer care chat support and discussed the problem with them. They said that ‘manual duplex printings available in this printer’. He has proved Ex.C-3, which shows the difference between auto duplexing and manual duplexing. Ex.C-3 is also consisting of the page showing that there is two sided print manual (upto A4/LTR) and booklet was also available. Ex.C-6 is the email, vide which he was suggested that duplex printing is not possible in this model, but the customer is insisting if this mode is not available, then why the option of duplex (manual) is provided in preference of driver. Perusal of the brochure further reveals that it has specifically been mentioned in the column of print function ‘two sided print manual upto A4/Ltr’, meaning thereby that there was an option of manual printing, but as per the emails proved on record by the complainant, this option was not available in the model, he has purchased. The complainant has proved the emails Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-16. Perusal of all these emails show that in chatting with executive and technician of the OPs, it has come on the record that the manual printing option is not available for this printer model i.e. (DCP-T520W), it’s just for show of. The OP No.1 is the renowned company, but perusal of the brochure and the emails clearly show that there is specific reference of the manual two sided printing of the present model, but as per the chattings between the engineer and customer, which show that the engineer has said that the complainant can use manual mode of duplexing because this printer does not have automatic mode and in the entire chatting, the complainant has specifically mentioned that he is not talking and using about the automatic duplex mode rather he want to use and is using manual duplex function, but the result is not positive. The complainant has specifically complained that this function of two sided manual option is available in main option of the printer and if this function is not available in this printer, then this option should never reflect in main function i.e. Software. This fact has been admitted by the engineer in all the chatting that this function is just a show of and it does not work in the present model.
7. From the above conversation and documents, it is proved that the complainant has been mis-lead by the features mentioned in the brochure. After being allured from the features, he purchased the printer, but it did not serve the purpose for which he had taken the printer. This is the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and both the OPs are directed to refund the price of the printer for a sum of Rs.14,315/- to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.8000/- for causing mental tension and harassment. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
10.01.2023 Member Member President
