SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP’s jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of Rs.65,500/- as the cost of printer with 12% interest per annum from the date of payment , Rs.1,20,000/- as the loss from 28/4/2022 to 28/10/2022 @Rs.800/- per day and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief :
The complainant is running a small shop, viz Digital ,Seva under the license from Govt. of India for his livelihood. The complainant had placed an order to 1st OP on 25/11/2021 for the supply of a printer in order to using the shop. The complainant made the payment of Rs.66500/- to 1st OP through online and 1st OP confirmed the order through online on 25/11/2021 itself and the product delivered on 30/11/2021 as per invoice No.2111260001 through OPs2&3. The 3rd OP was brought the printer and supplied to the complainant as confirmed by 1st OP. The details of product supplied is IDP,SOLID 510DPVC Printers”. As per the terms of warranty the product covered 2 year warranty from the date of purchase. At the time of offering to sell the product OP’s were promised that they will provide prompt service and necessary repair in case of any complaint. The complainant was agreed to purchase the product believing the words of OP. But after 3 months of purchase ie, on 24/2/2022 the printer shown some errors in printing such as card struck, scratch on printed card, card block while printing etc. Immediately the complainant contacted 3rd OP, who is the technician of OPs1&2 . The 3rd OP rectified the error after 4 days. Then again on 28/4/2022 the printer got some error and the complainant contacted to 3rd OP. But he did not turn up. Then the complainant contacted the OPs 1&2 for rectifying the error of the printer. But they are not turned up. Then the complainant again contacted to 3rd OP and Mr. Aneesh who is another technician of 2nd OP to repair the printer. But they did not turned up. At last on 25/5/2022 OPs 2&3 came and took away the printer from his shop telling that he will repair the printer and give back. Thereafter no response from the side of OP. The only source of income of the complainant and his family is deriving from the shop where the printer is also using. The complainant had spent huge amount to purchase the printer. Now the printer is still with the OP’s. As per the terms of warranty of the printer the OP’s are liable to repair the printer on free of cost within 2 years from the date of purchase. The OP’s are liable to repair the printer free of cost and return without delay. But they failed to do so. The act of OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint, notice issued to all opposite parties. OPs received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version. The commission had to hold that the OP’s have no version as such this case came to be proceed against the opposite parties as exparte.
Even though the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 2 documents marking them as Exts.A1&A2. The complainant was examined as PW1. So the opposite parties remain absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice and confirmation of delivery of the product. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. According to the complainant the 1st OP received an amount of Rs.66,500/- from the complainant dtd.25/11/2021 and the printer delivered on 30/11/2021. At the time of offering to sell the product the OP’s were promised that they will provide prompt service and necessary repair in case of any complaint. Then on 24/2/2022, 3 months of purchase the printer shown some errors in printing such as card stuck, scratch on printed card, card block, etc . The complainant informed 3rd OP and he rectified the defect. Thereafter on 28/4/2022 the printer again got error. The complainant informed the OP’s in several times but they told some lame excuse. At last on 25/5/2022 the OPs 2&3 took away the printer from his shop telling that they will repair the printer and give back. But they failed to do. So OP’s bound to repair the printer on free of cost within the warranty period. So the OP’s are liable to repair the printer with free of cost without delay. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the repaired printer with free of cost along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to repair the printer with free of cost and in a working condition to the complainant along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.66,500/-carries interest@ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization , failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-delivery details and receipt dtd.26/11/2021
A2- Warranty card.
PW1-Sunilkumar - Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
