This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 24-10-14 in the presence of complainant and of Sri M. Hari Babu, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-    The complainant filed this complaint                      u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation and also to pay costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaints are these:

          The complainant purchased Epson L200 All in one printer from WS Retail Service Private Limited on 30-04-12 for Rs.9590/-.   The said printer gave trouble that the printouts came out with different colours and also a service message occurred that the service life of the ink pad is completed.   On 27-04-13 the complainant made a complaint under voice call No.INW5000414014.   The opposite party took twelve days time and complied the complaint on 08-05-13, after several efforts and notice dated 07-05-13 sent by the complainant.  Similar situation occurred in 2012 and the complainant made a complaint on 08-11-12 under RMA No.INW5000256347, that complaint was complied on 27-11-12 i.e., with a delay of twenty days.   The complainant due to lack of proper service by the opposite parties suffered lot of mental agony and loss of work.  It is crystal clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.        

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of 1^st opposite party and its contents are as follows:

          The complainant filed this complaint by suppressing all the facts.   It is true that the complainant complained about the repairs occurred to the printer to the opposite parties.   Coming to the 1^st problem i.e., RMS INW5000256347 the problem reported by the complainant was not printing and the same was reported to manufacturer’s toll free on 08-11-12 and the same was forwarded to the service center i.e., 2^nd opposite party on 09-11-12.   The service engineer attended the problem on the same day and found that the problem is in print head and replaced the following components:

          COMPONENT          PART CODE       QTY.

          1. Print Head         F181010        1 No.

          2. Encoder            1554197        1 No.

          3. CIS                             2136873        1 No.

          Generally electronic gadgets are to be working often at least once in a week, otherwise the working quality may be deteriorated.   This Epson L200 All in One printer contains a tank with four compartments and contains different colours on the left side of the printer.   Whenever    required the liquid ink will flow to the print head through proper cable.   If the printer is not under working the liquid ink remains in the cables and in the print heads and it gets dried.   It will not allow free flow of ink on the walls of the cables and nozzles of the print head.   To avoid this problem software provided by the manufacturer which is compact disk i.e., head clean system is being used, so that the printer will be reinstated to normal condition.   In this head clean system the ink in the tanks will be forcibly sent through the cables to the print head and the print head will be cleared, this system is to be used occasionally.   If it is used regularly the life time of the print head and sub components will be reduced.  In query No.RMA:INW5000256347 there was a need of said components and they were ordered by the service center since they were not existing with them readily.   After acquiring the said components on 21-11-12 the components were fixed.   No delay was caused on the part of the manufacturer as well as the service center.   Coming to the 2^nd complaint No.RMA:INW5000414014 the complaint was lodged through manufacturer’s toll free number on 27-04-13 and the same was forwarded to the service center within twenty four hours.   Due to holidays on 28-04-13 the service center may not have watched the mail.  Actually the service center has to attend the complainant’s problem on 29-04-13 or on 30-04-13 due their work pressure they did not attend the same on the above said dates.   The service center engineers attended the problem on 02-05-13 (as 01-05-13 is a public holiday i.e., May Day).   The service engineers decided that the waste ink pads are to be replaced and requested complainant to provide a laptop or a computer to solve the same.   The complainant was unable to provide any such gadgets.   The service engineers requested the complainant that the printer will be taken to the service center for getting it repaired.   The complainant suspecting the character of our service engineers did not accept to take the printer along with the service engineers to the work shop.   The service engineer brought their own laptop and got the problem of the printer rectified on 08-05-13.  The manufacturer as well as service center expressed unconditional apology to the complainant for the delay caused (By the time the complainant gave notice to the manufacturer about the delay).  The Hon’ble Forum may dismiss the complaint and to direct the complainant to pay the costs for filing this frivolous litigation.  

4.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties.

5.    The points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

          1. Whether the complaints vide Nos.INW 5000256347 and

                INW 5000414014 created by the complainant were complied             by the opposite parties with delay?

          2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

          3. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:-    The complainant’s allegation is that the complaint’s lodged by him in respect of repairs occurred to his EPSON L200 printer with warranty upto 30-04-13 in the following two instances were attended with much delay by opposite parties.  

          Ex.A-2 and A-3 job sheets signed by Mr. M. Vinod, Engineer.

7.     The 1^st query as contended by opposite parties was complied on              21-11-12 (as per the service sheet Ex.B-2 filed by the opposite parties) as against the date mentioned by complainant i.e., 27-11-12.    But in the job sheet Ex.A-2 filed by the complainant which is issued by the opposite party engineer by name Mr. N. Vinod the date of completion was                      27-11-12.   The service sheet Ex.B-2 is not bearing any signature of the opposite parties service men, therefore reliance cannot be placed on such document.    

8.      The opposite party admitted the delay in 2^nd query and stated that it was received on 27-04-13 in their version and further stated that,               “due to Sunday on 28-04-13 the service center may not watched the mail.   Actually the service center has to attend the complainant’s problem on 29-04-13 or 30-04-13.   Due to their work pressure that they did not attended the same on the above said dates.   The service center Engineers attended the above said problem on 02-05-13 (As 01-05-13 is a public holiday i.e., May Day)”.

9.      The 1^st and 2^nd query were complied by the opposite parties with delay of nineteen and twenty days respectively.  The opposite parties admission of the delay in both the complaints created by the complainant gives strength to the allegations of the complainant.  

10.  The opposite parties in view of the delay made by them are liable to compensate the complainant and answered this point in favour of the complainant.    

11.  POINT No.2:-   The opposite parties having received the 1^st and 2^nd complaint on 08-11-12 and 27-04-13 respectively had completed on               27-11-12 and 08-05-13 i.e., with a delay of nineteen and eleven days.   The delay was admitted by the opposite parties in their version.   The delay made by the opposite parties in discharging their duties of rectifying the problem in the printer of the complainant is nothing but deficiency of service on their part.   In such circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant and answered this point in favour of the complainant.   

12.  POINT No.3:-          The cost of printer is Rs.9590/-.  With the amount of compensation sought by the complainant i.e., Rs.20,00,000/- 200 printers can be purchased.   The complainant did not file any document to show the work undertaken by him and the period of its completion to estimate the loss or injury sustained.   The complainant sought huge amount of compensation as no advalorem court fee is payable.   The Consumer Forums are not lottery ticket vending machines.   Undoubtedly, the delay in attending to the repairs could have caused some inconvenience.   In the absence of required particulars this Forum is unable to estimate the same in monitory terms.  Under these circumstances awarding Rs.2,000/- as compensation will meet ends of justice.

13.  Any person claiming damages has to take steps to minimize the damages.   Even if the complainant’s work is hampered he can purchase a new printer (on account of delay in repairing) and recover the same from the opposite parties.   The complainant did nothing on his part to minimize the damages.

14.    The complainant in his affidavit dated 25-09-14 prayed the Forum to direct the opposite parties to repair the printer completely.                          The complainant disagreed to the proposal offered by the opposite parties (by way of memo) and endorsed that “I am not acceptable to his memo”.  The memo dated 24-10-14 filed by the opposite parties reads as follows:

      “Opposite parties 1 and 2 are ready to provide service for clearing all the problems of the printer at present and ready to replace any components if require and we are ready to make the printer to keep it working in a good condition”. 

15.   In Alok Kumar Roy v s. Head of the Sales and Services (Lap Top Computers), Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited 2013 (3) CPR 365 (NC) it was held that the award of consumer court is not a jackpot or a lottery.   In the above case the revision petitioner/complainant claimed compensation, mental agony and the price of Lap Top totaling to Rs.9,73,436/-.   The NCDRC observed that even otherwise, if his Lap Top goes out of order, the complainant had other alternatives for internet access through various internet cyber cafes.   Therefore, the complainant’s claim for Rs.9,73,436/- appears to be unjust enrichment, the contention of the complainant is quite surprising and mischievous.

16.   In Subhash Trimbak Khedkar, at post Shirapur Tq. Vs. Syndicate Bank, through its Chairman and Managing Director and another (2014 (4) CPR 259 (NC) it was held that purpose of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich consumers.   In the above case the complainant/appellant made a claim for Rs.20,20,156/-.   While confirming the order of the State Commission awarding Rs.23,000/- the NCDRC held “The entire case of appellant is based upon uncertainties, conjuncture and surmises.   The project profitability statement as relied by the appellant is of no help to him, since it pertains to 3^rd and 4^th year, respectively. 

        The State Commission had rightly observed, that the actual loss suffered by the appellant is only the amount of expenditure which it had incurred for the purpose of preparation of the project report, search report and registration of mortgage deed, which comes to Rs.23,000/-“.  

17.  In Vijay Kumar Barman & Others vs. Baghela Gas Service, Distributor, Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others (2014 (3) CPR 694 (NC) it was held:

“The assessment and quantification of compensation for loss of human life in monetary terms is an extremely difficult task, particularly when there is no evidence about the earning capacity of the deceased and resultantly, the quantum of deprivation of income to the dependents.   Undoubtedly, it would involve some guess work, based on the attendant circumstances.  Nevertheless, it has to be fair and equitable, to make good, as far as the money can do, the loss suffered by the family as a result of the incident, and not as a bonanza or largesse”.

18.  In Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) the Supreme Court held :

“While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider.   Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.   No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation.  It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.” 

19.    In light of the above citations and  discussion, the Forum decided to  allow the complaint in part and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.   No costs.   

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th day of November, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.