Haryana

Ambala

CC/86/2011

PARAMJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BIG BAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHUTOSH AGGARWAL

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

               Complaint Case No.: 86 of 2011

   Date of Institution    :14.03.2011

   Date of Decision  :   13.07.2015

Paramjit Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o 156, Gurunanak Nagar, Jarot Road, Ambala City.

……….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Big Bazar, Ambala  Cantt through its Branch Manager.

2.       M/s Epson India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, The Millenia Tower A, No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, M.G. Bangalore-560008 Tel: 080-30515000 through its General Manager.

3.       M/s Infotech Computers & Communication, SCO 357, 1^st Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Service Manager.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Jaspreet Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Naveen Chawla, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh. R.K. Kashyap, Adv. for OP No.2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.                 

ORDER

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant  purchased a Printer Epson TX-110 from OP No.1 vide cash memo No.T17/34560 on 17.05.2010 having one year warranty.  The printer created printing fault and a complaint was registered with OP No.2 vide complaint No.915713 dated 21.12.2010 and on their asking, the printer was taken to Service Centre of company i.e. OP No.3 on 24.12.2010 at Chandigarh  and they  returned the printer on 28.12.2010 without repair  with the reasons that consumer is using compatible cartridge, so it is not covered under warranty. The complainant further submitted that as per warranty terms & conditions  No.4(e), use of third party ink cartridge does not void the warranty as alleged by Ops.  Hence, having no other alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared. OP No.1 filed its written statement submitting that the complaint against the answering OP is not maintainable  as he  has only sold the product in question for petty commission and there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP.  As such a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

                   OP No.2 filed separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint, suppression of material facts and that the complainant is using non-genuine cartridge in the printer and thus the answering Op is absolved from its liability in terms of warranty and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been urged that the printer created problem due to  use of non-genuine cartridge /refilled cartridge resulting the damage to the holder shaft assembly  & L.D. roller etc. which is a negligence on the part of complainant himself.  In spite of it, answering Op has provided service to the complainant as and when any compliant is received by them  and thus prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                OP No.3 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and that as per clause 4(e) of terms and conditions of the warranty clause, warranty becomes null & void in case of use of non-genuine products in the printers.  On merits, it has been submitted that  the complainant approached the answering  Op on 28.12.2010 and on checking it came to notice of answering OP that the complainant was not using genuine EPSON Cartridge rather using a third party made cartridge and as per warranty clause,  it was not covered under the warranty.  However, answering OP offered the complainant to repair the same on charge basis and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.                In evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel of OP No.2 tendered Affidavit of Sh. Om Parkash, Engineer as Annexure RX and documents as Annexures R-1 & R-2 but Op No.1 failed to tender any evidence despite last opportunity, hence, his evidence was closed by court order on 13.02.2014 whereas OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte  vide order dated 13.02.2014.

5.                     After hearing the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the printer in question was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant which was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase and it is also undisputed that the printer in question was having some defect and the complainant produced the same with their service centre for rectification of defect on 24.12.2010 but  the same was returned back by the OP No.3 on 28.12.2010 with the remarks that ‘the complainant was using a third party made compatible cartridge resulting into non-coverage of the product under warranty’.  Therefore, the first and foremost question arises for consideration before the Forum is whether the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty clause? Annexure C-3 is the document which is having terms & conditions of the warranty.  Relevant Clause 4(e) of the warranty conditions is reproduced as under:-

                        4.         This warranty shall be rendered  null & void if:-

                                    (a)       x x x x x x

                                    (b)       x x x x x x

                                    (c)       x x x x x x

                                    (d)       x x x x x x

 

(e)  The product is used in conjunction with non-genuine Epson consumables, including but not restricted to third party ink cartridges, ribbon cartridges, toner cartridges, refill kits, continuous ink systems, media or any other such products.  

                        From the perusal of aforesaid warranty conditions 4(e), it is clear that  the complainant is not restricted  to use the ink cartridge, refill etc. of other company but the Ops are now evading their liability under the garb of alleging  usage of third party made cartridge by the complainant in the printer which is a clear cut case of deficiency  in service on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3  by not repairing the printer of the complainant though the same is duly covered in the warranty. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and Ops No.2 & 3 are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of the order:-

1. To return the cost of Printer to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2690/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  its purchase i.e. 17.05.2010 to till its realization.
2. And to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- on account of mental agony and harassment as the complainant remained deprived of  from the facility of  Printer.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.

 

                        Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops No.2 & 3 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall attract further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                   

Announced:13.07.2015      

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                    (A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                        (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                               MEMBER

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                       (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                                   MEMBER