IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 31^st  day of December, 2021.

                                      Filed on 01.10.2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.246/2019

between

Complainant:-                                                              Opposite parties:-

Sri.Sanalkumar                                                1.     Epson India Corporate Office

S/o Vasudevan                                                        12^th Floor, The Millenia Tower A

Thulappil                                                                No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor

Thekkekara.P.O                                                       Banglore-560008

(Adv. B.Subash)                                                      (Adv. Manu Harshakumar)

                                                                         2.   Real Computers

                                                                               New Bazar,

                                                                               Alappuzha-688001

                                                                              (Party in Person)           

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1.      Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

Complainant is conducting studios by name Chamayam studio at Pooppally, Nedumudi and Mankomb. On10-8-18 complainant purchased a printer and mother board for Rs.35,078/- from the 2^nd opposite party and it was  manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  After about 4 months the printer became defunct and the matter was informed through their toll free number.  As per the request the printer was produced at the office of the 2^nd opposite party for repairs.  Since the printer was not available complainant had to do his work at other studios.  Though complainant contacted the company over phone several times, the defect was not cured. 

2.      During September 2019 the printer was returned without repairs and though it was assured that they will replace the same it was not done.  Complainant sustained heavy loss since the printer was not functioning.  Hence the complaint is filed to exchange the printer and in the alternative to return Rs.36,078/-being its price.  Complainant is also entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation.

3.      1^st opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

          1^st opposite party is the reputed manufacturer of various kinds of printers and other subsequent electronic items.  Complainant had purchased a computer and accessories on 10-8-18 from the 2^nd opposite party retailer.  The actual price of the printer is RS.31,000/- and the additional price  is of the mother board.

4.      The averment that printer got damaged after 4 months and complainant informed the matter over toll free number is denied.  There was no such intimation where as the 2^nd opposite party had forwarded the printer to the 1^st opposite party.  There was no direction from the 1^st opposite party to hand over the printer  to 2^nd opposite party.  On examination of the printer it was noticed that it is totally dead as it was water logged.  Since liquid damages are not covered under the warranty the said machine was returned to the 2^nd opposite party without repairing on 21-1-19.  The printer was subjected to the flood and thus it got damaged and it was clarified by the expert technicians of the 1^st opposite party.  There is no manufacturing defect to the product and there is no warranty protection.  Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

5.      2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the printer exchanged as prayed for in the alternative whether the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs. 35,078/- being the value of printer ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation ?
4. Reliefs and cost?

6.      Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1  and Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the complainant.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.  Ext.B1 was marked.

Point No.1 to 3

PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A9.

7.      PW1, the complainant purchased a printer Epson L 1800011972 from the 2^nd opposite party M/s Real Computers on 10/8/2018 as per Ext.A1 invoice.  PW1 is conducting a studio and the printer was purchased for  using in the studio. After about 4 months it became defunct and the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party manufacturer through their  Toll Free No.   Thereafter as per their direction it was produced before the 2^nd opposite party for repairs on 11/12/2018 as per Ext.A2.  on 21/1/2019 it was returned as per Ext.A3 customer service report without  repairing.  It is stated in Ext.A3 that the printer is water logged due to flood.  It is written in Ext.A3 “that printer not covered under warranty due to water logged conditions and  returned without repair”.  Hence the complaint is filed either to replace the printer with a new one or to pay the bill amount.   Complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on a contention that he was unable to do printing  for several months and he lost his business also.  1^st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting that the price of the printer is only Rs.31,000/- and according to them there was no  intimation regarding the complaint. They got information when 2^nd opposite party forwarded the printer to the 1^st opposite party for repairs.  According to them  there is no manufacturing defect for the printer and the machine is totally dead as it was water logged.  Since liquid damages are not covered under the warranty the machine was returned without repairing on 21/1/2019. 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.   Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 were marked.  1^st opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence Ext.B1 standard warranty norms was marked.

8.      The fact that PW1 purchased a printer for a total price of Rs.31,270/- as per Ext.A1 tax invoice on 10/8/2018 from the 2^nd opposite party is not in dispute.  It is also admitted that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the printer.  According to PW1 the printer became defunct and on 11/12/2018 it was produced before the 2^nd opposite party which is revealed from Ext.A2.  At the time when it was produced the fault reported was “not powering”.  The printer was sent to 1^st opposite party for repairs.  However as per Ext.A3 Customer Service Report on 21/1/2019 it was returned without repairing on a contention that the complaint was water logged due to flood and it cannot be repaired under warranty since there is no coverage for water logging.  The relief sought by PW1 is either to exchange with a new one or to pay the price of the same. 

9.      On a perusal of the proof affidavit it is seen that the 1^st paragraph is description about the personal and family problems of the complainant.  To prove such contentions he has produced Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 documents.  However it is noticed that such contentions are not seen taken in the complaint.   As held by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in   Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos  Vs. T.P.Avira & Others (1958 KLT 721(SC))

“ Civil P.C.1908, O.VI, R.7- Pleadings- Parties cannot go outside the pleadings and set up a new case.”

  10.  The same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court in  Elizabeth  Vs. Saramma ( 1984 KLT 606)

“No evidence can be looked into by the court for which there is no foundation in the pleadings”

11.    So the 1^st paragraph of the chief affidavit regarding the personal and family problems of the complainant cannot be looked into since there is no pleadings for the same. Further it is  often said that “order has to come from the head and not from the heart”.  Coming to the merits of the case admittedly PW1 purchased the printer along with a mother board as per Ext.A1 invoice on 10/8/2018.  It is also an admitted fact that   the printer became defunct and it was produced before the 2^nd opposite party on 11/12/2018 as per Ext.A2.  The printer was sent to the 1^st opposite party manufacturer for repairs by the 2^nd opposite party and on 21/1/2019 as per Ext.A3 customer service report it was returned without repairing.  The observed problem noted in Ext.A3 is water logged due to flood.  The action taken/rectification details is shown as printer  not covered under  warranty due to water logged condition and returned without repairs.  Along with Ext.A2 warranty details are seen attached which shows that the printer had a one year warranty for peace of mind. 1^st opposite party has produced Ext.B1 standard warranty norms.   Admittedly during August 2018 there was an unprecedented flood almost all over Kerala.   Complainant purchased the printer as per Ext.A1 on 10/8/2018 and the flood occurred during August 2018.  From Ext.A2 it is seen that it was produced for repairs before 2^nd opposite party on 11/12/2018 with a complaint “not powering”.  From Ext.A3 it can be seen that the complaint was water logged due to flood. Since water logging is not covered under warranty it was returned without repairs.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that other materials and instruments in the studio was not affected by flood and so the  printer was also not affected by flood.   PW1 admitted that he is having two studios one at Mankombu and another at Pooppally. Both are situated in Kuttanadu.   As per Ext.A6 Rent Deed it can be seen that the shop room is on the ground floor.  Admittedly during August 2018  there was a flood and  Kuttanadu was much effected area. So there is possibility of water logging in the shop room which might have damaged the printer. Since there is no warranty coverage for water logging opposite party cannot be directed to exchange the printer or to return the price of the same.  Since there is no warranty coverage printer cannot be repaired  free of cost also.   In said circumstances no order can be given to the 1^st opposite party either to exchange the printer or to return the price of the same.  PW1 is claiming an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation on a contention that he was unable to same. But as discussed earlier the printer became damaged due to water logging and so the manufacturer cannot be liable since water logging is not covered under warranty. In said circumstances PW1 is not entitled for any relief as claimed and so these points are found against him. 

12.    Point No.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed.  Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 31^st   day of December, 2021.

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

 PW1          -        Sanil Kumar(Complainant

Ext.A1       -        Tax Invoice dtd.10/8/2018

Ext.A2       -          Copy of Service Receipt dtd. 11/12/2018

Ext.A3       -          Customer Service Report 21/1/2019

Ext.A4       -          Copy of Medical Report

Ext.A5       -          Copy of Medical Report

Ext.A6       -          Deed of Licence

Ext.A7       -          Licence issued from Nedumudi Panchayath

Ext.A8       -        Registration Certificate

Ext.A9       -        Registration Certificate 

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

Ext.B1       -        Standard Warranty Forms

///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-