BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 392 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.6.2015
Date of Decision : 01.03.2016
Bibi Kaulan Ji Charitable Hospital, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar through its Trustee advisor Sh. Tehalinder Singh (erstwhile known as Mata Kaulan Ji Bandi Chhod Charitable Hospital)
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Computer Galaxy, 47, Pink Plaza Market, Near PBN School, O/s Hall Gate, Amritsar through its authorized person
- M/s. BMS Computer Epson Service Centre, Railway Link Road, Near Rosh Hotel, Amritsar through its authorized person
- M/s. Epson India Pvt.Ltd., 12th floor, Millenia Tower, 1-Morphy Road, Ulsoor, M.G., Bangalore 560008 Phone No. 080-30515000 through its Managing Director or authorized person
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Gobindpal Singh, Rep.
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh.Mandeep Singh,Rep.
For opposite parties No.2 & 3: Sh.B.S.Rajput,Adv.
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. Present complaint has been filed by Bibi Kaulanji Charitable Hospital through its trustee advisor Sh.Tehalinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant trust purchased printer Epson make L-210 from opposite party No.1 on 5.7.2014 for Rs. 10400/-. According to the complainant the working of the said printer was never upto the mark and when there was rush of work the printer stopped working and the general public had to suffer inconvenience . Complainant made so many complaints to opposite party No.1 to replace the said printer as the same is not working from the first day of its purchase, but opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and directed the complainant to contact opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of Epson Printers. Complainant approached the said service centre , who told the complainant that some parts are required to be replaced but demanded huge amount for replacement of the said parts on the ground that same are not covered under the warranty. On the request of the complainant, the service centre of Epson Printers retained the said printer for its replacement vide receipt No. 632 dated 17.6.2015, but till date no steps have been taken by the said service centre. Complainant has alleged that at the time of sale of the said printer , it was assured by the opposite parties that the said printer is under full warranty for any manufacturing defects in the printer. Complainant has alleged that the said printer stopped working from the first day of its purchase and at present it had totally stopped working, but the opposite parties did not took any action on the requests of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 10,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.2 & 3 in its written version have denied that complainant has purchased the said printer on 5.7.2014 from opposite party No.1. Rather the said printer was installed by the employee of opposite party No.3 i.e. Harmanpreet singh on 1.4.2014 at Mata Kaulan Ji Charitable Hospital, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar . It was submitted that complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 17.6.2015. It was admitted that some parts were to be replaced for the removal of defect . It was submitted that warranty of the said printer has been elapsed and those parts were not covered under the warranty. It was submitted that as the complainant refused to pay those charges for replacement of same and left the printer with opposite party No.2 for removal of defect and in this respect receipt was issued to the complainant. It was denied that opposite parties have sold an old printer . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Initially opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.7.2015 but later on Sh.Mandeep Singh appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage vide order dated 20.10.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tehalinder Singh, Trustee Advisor Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of sh.Manmeet Singh,Prop.of Computer Galaxy Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar Das Ex.OP2,3/1, copy of customer service report Ex.OP2,3/2.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant trust Charitable Hospital purchased one Epson make L-210 printer from opposite party No.1 on 5.7.2014 for a sum of Rs. 10400/- vide invoice Ex.C-1. The complainant submitted that the working of the said printer was never upto the mark and when there was rush of work the printer stopped working and the general public had to suffer. Complaints were made to opposite party No.1 in this regard but opposite party No.1 could not set right the working of the printer in question nor replaced the said printer with new one. Opposite party No.1 ultimately directed the complainant to contact opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Epson printer for removal of the defect. Resultantly complainant approached opposite party No.2 who kept the printer with them vide receipt No. 632 dated 17.6.2015 Ex.C-3 with the submission that some parts of the printer are required to be replaced. But opposite party No.2 neither repaired the said printer nor replaced the same with new one and the said printer is still lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. Whereas case of opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that the said printer of the complainant was installed by the employee of opposite party No.3 on 1.4.2014 with fully satisfactory condition as per service report Ex.OP2,3/2. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 denied that the printer was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 5.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-1. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 17.6.2015. Some parts of the printer were to be replaced for the removal of the defects. The warranty of the printer has already elapsed, so those parts are not covered under the warranty given to the complainant and when opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to pay charges for the parts to be replaced, the complainant refused to pay those charges and left opposite party No.2. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant Charitable Trust Hospital purchased Epson make L-210 printer from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs. 10400/- on 5.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-1. Sh. Mandeep Singh, representative of opposite party No.1 also appeared in this Forum and admitted that the complainant purchased this printer from opposite party No.1 on 5.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-1. The case of opposite parties No.2 & 3 that the said printer was installed at the premises of the complainant on 1.4.2014 as per service report Ex.OP2,3/2 , is not tenable because the opposite parties could not produce any evidence that this printer was installed by the employee of opposite party No.3 namely Harmanpreet Singh on 1.4.2014 and representative of the complainant signed this service report . Further the opposite parties have failed to prove on record as to who signed this service report on behalf of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties also could not produce affidavit of their own employee Harmanpreet Singh, who allegedly installed the said printer at the premises of the complainant Charitable Trust Hospital on 1.4.2014. Moreover, the seller i.e. opposite party No.1 itself states that the complainant purchased this printer from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 5.7.2014 Ex.C-1. As such, when it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased this printer from opposite party No.1 on 5.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-1, then how it could be possible that the employee of opposite party No.3 installed this printer at the premises of the complainant Charitable Hospital on 1.4.2014. The printer did not work properly and it was handed over by the complainant Charitable hospital to opposite party No.2 as it stopped working vide receipt dated 17.6.2015 Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.2 , authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 could not repair this printer. The plea of the opposite party No.2 that warranty of the printer has already elapsed on 1.4.2015, is not tenable because warranty of the printer in question is for one year w.e.f. 5.7.2014 to 4.7.2015. Opposite party No.2 could not repair this printer and have also failed to return the same to the complainant. As such this Forum is of the opinion that the printer in question of the complainant is not repairable. As such opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the same with new one or to refund the price of the printer to the complainant alongwith interest.
11. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the printer of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the printer i.e. Rs. 10,400/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which opposite parties No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on the price of the printer i.e. Rs. 10,400/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
01.03.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
