Delhi

East Delhi

CC/395/2022

VP SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EPSON INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 395/2022 

 

	V.P. SHARMA A/4, PLOT NO.32, INDRAPRASTHA EXTENSION, DELHI  - 110092	….Complainant
Versus
	EPSON INDIA PVT. LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE, 12TH FLOOR, MILLENIUM TOWER-A, ULSOOR MURPHY ROAD  BANGALORE NO.1, MURPHY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560008, KARNATAKA, INDIA	……OP1
	M/S BANSAL STANMART (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SHOP NO.8 AND 9, 43 VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, BASEMENT BASANT COMPLEX, 38, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SAKARPUR, DELHI - 110092	……OP2
	M/S E-del 77 QUEST INFOTECH, 302 LUXAMI CHAMBERS, D-223, LUXMI NAGAR, DELHI - 110092	……OP3

 

Date of Institution	:	18.07.2022
Judgment Reserved on	:	24.03.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	29.03.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

By this Judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to giving faulty Printer to the OP and then by not repairing it.

 

Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Printer L-5290 ALL IN ONE PRINTER, Product No.X8H6001808, L-5290 for Rs.18500/- vide Bill No./Invoice No. BSM/21-22/30225 dated 12.02.2022 from OP2 who is an authorized dealer of OP1 for such product, but when this said printer was activated it was not functioning properly despite being within the warranty period for which a complaint was made but it was not repaired/rectified.  The complainant was made to run from pillar to post for getting the Printer in functional condition which was not done by OP rather OP  stopped even attending the calls of the Complainant and as such he was compelled to file the present complaint thereby seeking direction to OP to replace the defective/non-functional Printer, to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/-, to pay litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-. 

 

The OPs were served but remained absent despite service and were proceeded Ex-parte vide Order dated 11.10.2022.  Complainant has filed his evidence. 

 

Arguments heard. 

 

The Repair Card/Job Card dated 07.05.2022 and 26.05.2022 seen and prima facie it is clear that there was some defect in the Printer which was not rectified.  The version of the complainant has gone unrebutted.  However, there is no expert opinion w.r.t. having any manufacturing defect in the product and only defect which is stated to be that the seller has not made the Printer functional despite two visits. 

Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that no order can be passed against manufacturer w.r.t any defect in the Printer but the OP2 who has sold the defective Printer is found to be deficient in providing the services to the complainant.  Similarly, there is no deficiency alleged against OP3. 

 

Accordingly, OP2 directed to return an amount of Rs.18,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant and complainant would return the Printer along with accessories. 

 

In these circumstances complaint of the complainant against OP1 and OP3 is dismissed and is allowed against OP2 only.  OP2 is directed to pay compensation and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-. 

 

The Order be complied with 30 days of having received the copy of the Order and in case the same is not complied, the OP2 would pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room

Announced on 29.03.2023.