District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.484/2020.
Date of Institution: 17.12.2020.
Date of Order: 19.07.2022.
Pankaj Sharma aged about 28 years son of Shri P.D. Sharma, R/o House No. 708, Sector-55, R/o House No. 708, Sector-55, Faridabad – 121005, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Epson India Private Limited (customer Care/Service Centre) Office: 3F, NH-5, Near Nayyar Hospital, Fruit garden, NIT, Faridabad. Through its Principal Officer.
2. M/s. National Computer Service, Authorized Service Center, M/s. Epson Printer Pvt. Ltd., Office: 3F, NH-5, Near Nayyar Hospital, Fruit garden, NIT, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Anshu Siddiqui, counsel for the complainant.
Mohd. Nafees. Counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a printer Epson L4160 (8906049012917 x 4e4019656) from M/s. J.K. Computer (authorized dealer of Epson Printer India Limited) vide invoice No. 19764 dated 29.01.2020 for Rs.15,900/- with on side warranty of one year. After purchasing the said printer, the complainant started problem in using the said printer as the said printer started troubling in picking up paper and hence, the complainant approached Epson Company and advised to approach opposite party No.2 and accordingly, the complainant brought his printer to opposite party No.2 on 02.06.2020 and opposite party handed over the said printer to the complainant on 06.06.2020 with endorsement ”paper feeding problem. I checked printer remove dust and clean printer services done. I installed printer with wifi and startik IP update printer F/w and checked printer is working but Glossy paper not pickup. Error. Error (oooo41) this call was pending for. Technical report”. The problem remained same and again on 20.06.2020 opposite party again checked the printer but failed to remove the problem. Opposite party used to misguide the complainant under the garb that the opposite party had replaced parts one by one, but the problem did not cure. On 10.07.2020 the complainant again brought the said printer to opposite party and on 20.07.2020 returned the said printer but the problem remained same. Thereafter 25.09.2020 the complainant again brought the said printer to opposite party No.2 and on 29.09.2020 returned the said printer but the problem remained same. The complainant again brought the said printer to the opposite party No.2 with same problem and taken back on 03.10.2020, further submitted on 14.10.2020 with same problem and taken back on 30.10.2020 and again on 08.12.2020 and also sent several emails to the opposite parties but all in vain. The complainant sent a legal notice to opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace the defected printer Epson L4160 (8906049012917X4e4019656) with new one alongwith fresh warranty.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.22,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant purchased a printer named Epson L4160 *8906049012917 X4e4019656) vide invoice No. 19764 dated 29.01.2020 from M/s. J.K. Printers. It was submitted that upon the call of complainant the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 on 14.10.2020 received the call of complainant regarding print issue and the opposite party No.2 had resolved the issue and after complete satisfactory service handed over the printer to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 instructed the complainant to keep the call under observation but the complainant had not given any information regarding the working status of said printer with malafide intention so that complainant can level false allegations on opposite party No.1 as the complainant was intentionally adamant to replace the printer with new one from the very first day of his complaint. On 08.01.2021 the complainant again reported issue in printer without logging the printer. Service engineer visited the site and inspected the printer and found that printer was working in good condition and number of printing count was 1153 for the same day and error came after printing 943 pages, complainant intentionally concealed this fact and demanded for replacement of printer on 08.01.2021 because warranty was expired on the same day i.e. 08.01.2021. Therefore, this act of complainant clearly shows his malafide intention of avoiding printer repairmen to get the new printer. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Case called several time since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Epson India Private Limited & ors. with the prayer to : a) replace the defected printer Epson L4160 (8906049012917X4e4019656) with new one alongwith fresh warranty. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. c) pay Rs.22,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Pankaj Sharma,, Ex. C1 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C2 to C5 -RMA Receiving/Collection Slip, Ex.C-5 – note dated 18.9.2020,, Ex.C-7 – email, Ex.C-8 to C10– RMA Receiving/Collection Slip, Ex.C-12 to C-14 – emails, Ex.C-15 – Customer Service report, Ex.C-16 – legal notice,, Ex.C-17 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of opposite party, Ex.R-1 – Enrollment Form.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a printer Epson L4160 (8906049012917 x 4e4019656) from M/s. J.K. Computer (authorized dealer of Epson Printer India Limited) vide invoice No. 19764 dated 29.01.2020 for Rs.15,900/- vide Ex.C-1. After few days of installation of printer, the above said printer had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties vide job card sheets dated 06.06.2020, 20.06.2020, 20.07.2020, 09.09.2020, 18.09.2020 vide Ex.C2 to C6 as well as emails ipso facto go to prove that the printer in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the printer in question with a new one, subject to return the old printer, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room
Announced on: 19.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
