Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

442/2014

S.Venkataraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sumer Computers & Pheripherals Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.Veeraraghavan

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 10.11.2014

                                                                 Date of Order         : 29.08.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

C.C.No. 442/ 2014

THIS MONDAY  29^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

S. Venkataraman,

New No.36, Jubilee Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.                                                         .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

Sumer Computers & Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized signatory, Epson Authorized Service Centre, No.7, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.                                     .. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. S.Veeraraghavan.          

For the opposite party          :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,54,644/- towards mental agony and professional loss to the complainant, cost of the printer and cost of the cartridges.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 15.3.2016.

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’ counsel.

4.     It reveals form the documents that the complaint was dismissed for default on 9.6.2015 for the reason that the complainant had not filed his proof affidavit to prove his case against which he preferred appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  in F.A.No.215/2015 and the same was allowed on condition that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost to Madras Consumer Courts Bar Association on or before 22.12.2015.   Accordingly the complainant also complied the order on 18.12.2015 and proof affidavit was filed on  8.1.2016 and the complaint was restored. 

5.     The complainant contended that he purchased a printer from Epson.  The printer did not work and therefore he took the printer to the opposite party during the 1^st week of April 2014.   The technician opened the printer and opined that it has board problem and needs replacement of a new one.  The total estimate quoted by the opposite party  was Rs.2100/-   On 10.4.2014 the complainant handed over the printer to the opposite party for replacement of the board for which they issued a job sheet.   There was no mention as to the service charges.   Along with the printer the cartridges set (4) brand new purchased from Nippon Enterprises South was also handed over to the opposite party to test the printer working condition after replacement of the board.  The complainant made it very clear to keep the cartridges very safe so that the ink not get dried.    The opposite party also promised to keep it very safe.    

6.     The complainant further contended that there was no communication from the opposite party and by the end of April he telephoned to them for which the opposite party told that the black ink showed low level and could not satisfy the test for demonstration.   The complainant was shocked about it and told them to get replacement from the Nippon Enterprises and the opposite party also promised for getting a new black ink cartridge and deliver it in working condition by 12^th May 2014.   But on 15^th May 2014 when the complainant contacted the opposite party they replied that the complainant should collect the cartridge.    This reply was not only discourteous but also gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7.     The complainant further contended that he used the printer in the office for his professional matters and as such he lost vulnerable clients as he could not print pleading documents, like sale deed and scan of important documents and thereby he lost professional earning amounting to Rs.2.5 lakhs and also put to mental agony.   Therefore he filed the above complaint claiming loss of professional earning of Rs.2,50,000/- and loss of mental agony suffered for Rs.2,00,000/- and also claimed the cost of the printer of Rs.3,500/- and also cost of cartridge of Rs.1,144/-. 

8.     The facts of the case reveals that the complainant purchased a printer for his office due to the defect in the printer the technician from the opposite party inspected the printer and informed that there is board problem and the board has to be replaced and the cost of estimation of repair was quoted for Rs.2,100/- which was also accepted by the complainant.    The complainant also handed over the cartridges set (4) brand new purchased from Nippon Enterprises South to the opposite party along with the printer which is evidenced through Ex.A1.   Ex.A3 i.e. the job sheet given by the opposite party proves that they had taken the printer for repair.      

9.     The grievance of the complainant is that even after one month there was no communication from the opposite party towards the job work.   While so during the 1^st week of May 2014 when he contacted the opposite party he was told that the black ink of the cartridges showed low level and could not satisfy the test for demonstration.  Initially the opposite party accepted to replace the cartridges themselves so that the complainant could take the printer on 12.5.2014  but later they refused to do so and directed the complainant  to replace the cartridges. 

10.    With respect of the above grievance it reveals that it is not denied by the opposite party that they had received the cartridges the complainant had already directed the opposite party to keep the cartridges very safely so that the ink not get dried.  Moreover the opposite party would have tested the cartridges before receiving them from the complainant.   Hence it is clear that the opposite party had  failed to keep the cartridges safely and lethargic and thereby allowed to dry so that they could not satisfy the test for demonstration and also failed to return the printer rectifying the defects which shows the gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence the contention of the complainant that he need not buy new cartridges to satisfy the test demonstration of the printer as stated by the opposite party is acceptable.

11.       It is also pertinent to note that the complainant had also accepted to pay the repair charges of Rs.2100/- quoted by the Technician hence the opposite party had committed deficiency of service is acceptable.  The complainant also sent notice to the opposite party stating his grievance which was also acknowledged by them but the failure on the part of the opposite party to comply the grievance of the complainant still shows their deficiency in service.   

12.    With regard to the relief claimed by the complainant for refund of cost of printer is not sustainable since no document was furnished by him with the respect of purchase of printer and secondly with respect of refund of cost of cartridge of Rs.1,144/- as discussed above the opposite party ought to have  returned the complaint mentioned printer rectifying the defects  along with new cartridges fitted in the printer.  But he has failed to do so.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of cartridges.  

13.    Further grievance of the complainant is that he could not print for pleading, and also important documents of sale deed and thereby he incurred professional loss and also mental agony due to the act of the opposite party.   With regard to the compensation claimed towards professional loss, though the opposite party failed to do his duty the complainant could have taken alternate steps for his professional work as such his loss in professional earning should  be compensated by the opposite party is not acceptable.  However the complainant had suffered much hardship and mental agony as a senior lawyer due to the act of the opposite party is acceptable.  Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant towards mental agony.   

14.    Whereas the opposite party had not appeared before this forum in spite of receipt of notice and give any contra evidence to refute the contentions of the complainant and remained exparte.  

15.    Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service with respect of not returning the complaint mentioned printer duly rectifying the defect and also caused much hardship to the complainant.  Therefore we are inclined to allow the complaint in part.  Hence the opposite party is liable to return the complaint mentioned printer without rectifying the defects along with the cost of the cartridges

 

a sum of Rs.1,144/-.   The complainant’s counsel also submitted in his written arguments that the complainant received no information about the completion of repair and there was a total deficiency of service and hence the complainant had purchased a new printer at heavy cost and the printer is still in possession of the opposite party.    Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite party may be directed to return the complaint mentioned Printer without rectifying the defects.   

16.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to return the complaint mentioned printer without rectifying the defects along with cost of the  cartridges set (4) a sum of Rs.1,144/- to the complainant and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and also Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.   Since the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant just and reasonable compensation.  

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite party is directed to return the complaint mentioned printer without rectifying the defects along with cost of the  cartridges set (4) a sum of Rs.1,144/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred and forty four only) to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within six weeks  from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.1,144/ + Rs.15,000/) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.  

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th   day of August   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                    PRESIDENT

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 28.12.2013  - Copy of invoice from Nippon Enterprises South.

Ex.A2- 24.02.2014  - Copy of letter from Nippon enterprises South.

Ex.A3- 10.4.2014  - Copy of Job Work sheet from Sumer computer &

                                & Peripherals Pvt. Ltd.,

 

Ex.A4- 15.5.2014  -  Copy of letter from complainant to Sumer Computers

                                Peripherals Pvt. Ltd.,

 

Ex.A5- 21.5.2014   -  Copy of Postal Acknowledgment.

 

Ex.A6- 20.1.2015  -  Copy of High Court Registrar Letter.

 

Opposite party’s Exhibits:-          

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                   PRESIDENT