IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF April 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LLB ,Member
CC.No.11/2014
Aravind .P : Complainant
Neeranjanam
Kairali Nagar – 116
Kavanad P.O- 691003
Kollam
V/S
1. Peter Paul : Opposite parties
Epson India Local Office
In-charge (Manager)
39/5204 C , 3rd Floor
G 333, Panampally Nagar
Kochi – 682036
2. Reghu Venugopal
Printer Sales In charge
Epson India Local Office
39/5204 C , 3rd Floor
G 333, Panampally Nagar
Kochi – 682036
3. Shafeer
Manager
Hyper tech Systems
Kochukodungaloor Temple
Kollam – 691013
4. Girish Kumar
Proprietor
Hyper tech Systems
Near Kochukodungallur Temple
Kollam – 691013 (Impleaded as per order on IA75/14 dated 13/5/14)
(2)
5. Zonal Manager
M/s Epson India Pvt.Ltd
Epson India Zonal Office
39/5204, 3rd Floor G-333
Panampally Nagar
Kochi – 682036 (Impleaded as per order on IA.56/15 dated 18/01/2016)
[By Adv.R.Rajendran, Kollam]
ORDER
SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
The above case is based on a Complainant filed under section 12 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.Complaint filed by Aravind against 5 opposite parties seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/-, Rs.9100/- being the price of printer , selling a decree of perpetual injunction and costs of the proceedings .
Complainant’s case is that complainant had purchased a printer EPSON L 210S2AK017930 for Rs.9100/- from additional opposite party for on 31/1/13. Complainant purchased the printer on the basis of advertisement which clearly promises that said printer can give 27 prints per minute. But the complainant obtained only five prints per minute. The opposite party company claimed that only five seconds will be taken for getting one print. But actually 20 seconds were taken for taking one print .Hence complainant sent a complaint through e-mail and over phone. But no positive response from the opposite parties and has not cured the defects so far. So complainant approached the Forum seeking the reliefs.
Opposite party one, Two and additional opposite party four filed written version contending that complainant not impleaded the manufacturer in the array of opposite parties. The above opposite parties would claim that the said printer can give 27 prints per minute. Opposite parties also claims that they already visited complainant’s residence and showed that it would work as per the advertisement. At that time 27 prints obtained from the printer which is admitted by the complaint on 4-02-2015. Complainant suffered due to the lack of knowledge of operation of
(3)
the printer. The above opposite parties prays to accept their versions and to dismiss the complaint with their costs.
Though the opposite party No.3 and additional opposite party 5 had received notice from the forum they have neither appeared nor filed any written version. Hence they were declared ex party.
In view of the above pleadings the points that would arise for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the price of the printer?
3.Whether the complainant is entitle to get compensation as claimed ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for in relief No.3?
5. Reliefs and costs?.
When the case was posted for trail in the list to 27/02/2017 the opposite parties who filed version remained absent. They were also set exparte. Complainant himself has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ext.P1 to P7 documents.
Heard the complainant who himself has conducted the case. He has also filed notes of argument.
Point No:1 to 4:-
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 4 points are considered together.
This specific case of the complainant is that on 31-1-13 complainant had purchased a printer styled as EPSON L 210 worth Rs. 9100/- from additional opposite party 4. Ext P6 invoice issued to the complainant would establish the same. Ext P4 series e-mails sent from the manufacture indicating that said printer having one year warranty . Ext P5 report issued by the service technician deputed by the manufacturer has reported that the said printer provides just 5(five) prints per minute on A4 paper and not 27 (twenty seven) prints . Ext P5 report is seen
(4)
issued within the warranty period. In view of the Ext P1 brochure of the printer it is clear that EPSON L 210 Printer provide print speed approx. 27 ppm/ 15 ppm ( BK/CL). Opposite parties 1,2,4 already admits this facts in their version. None of the opposite parties adduced any oral or documentary evidence. In view of the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P5 report issued by the technician would clearly indicate that the claim of the opposite parties that 27 prints can be taken in one minute is a false claim and the said printer provides only 5 prints per minute. It is clear from Ext.P5 report that the service technician has inspected and verified the printer within the warrantee period of one year. Ext.P1 is admittedly the printer specification where in it is stated under the head printer speed “Maximum Draft text Memo A4 Approx 27 PPM/15PPMSKC1”. According to PW1 he purchased the printer on the basis of their claim in Ext.P1 published in their website.
The endorsement of the service technician deputed by the opposite parties in Ext.P5 would show that “EPSON L 210 printer provides just 5 (Five) prints per minute of A4 paper and not 27 (Twenty Seven) prints per minute as promised by the manufacturer . The service person seems to be helpless in this matter. So, I request the Company to sort out the issue technically and make sure that promise is kept”. It is clear from the above report of the service technician that the printer sold by the opposite parties would not comply with the specification published by the company. In the circumstances it is clear that the opposite parties have deceived the complainant by committing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the printer and installation charges after taking back the printer. The complainant also entitled to get the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.3000/- from opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite party 4 and 5.
The complainant also prays to pass decree of perpetual injunction restraining the opposite party from selling their printer by raising false claims. Selling a product manufactured by a company is within their right to carry on trade or
(5)
business guaranteed by the constitution. But nobody is entitled to publish and propagate any false claim and sell their products by making the innocent public to believe that their product wold work according to the false specification published in media including internet .
In view of the facts and circumstance we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite party 4 and 5 from selling their product on the basis of false claim. Hence they are liable to delete their claim regarding speed specified in the advertisement published in the internet.
The Points answered accordingly:-
Point .No.5
In the result complaint stands allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite parties 4 and 5 to pay Rs.9300/- being the value of the printer EPSON L 210 and its installation charge to the complainant after taking back the printer from the complainant within 45 days from today. The complainant is directed to return the printer within 45 days from today to 3rd opposite party from where he purchased and obtain receipt and also receive Rs.9300/- from the 3rd opposite party, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount Rs.9300/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint (30/01/2014) till realization from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite party 4 and 5 jointly and severally.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite parties 4 and 5 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for having committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in
service , failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs.10,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and additional opposite party 4 and 5 jointly and severally and from their assets .
(6)
The additional opposite party No.5 is here by directed to withdraw the false claim of speed of the EPSON L 210 printer from the internet and other print media within 45 days from today.
The opposite parties No . 1 to 3 and additional opposite parties 4 and 5 are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant being the cost of the proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Vijimole.G transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of April 2018.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant
PW1:- Aravind .P
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Printer specifications
Ext.P2:- Copy of dictionary
Ext.P3:- Copy of bill dated 31/01/2013
Ext.P4:- Copy of emails (2 sheets)
Ext.P5:- Copy of service report
Ext.P6.:-Copy of bill dated 31/01/2013
Ext.P7:-Copy of brochure dated 31/01/2013
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim: Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
