Complainant Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment which he faced in the hands of the opposite parties and he is also entitled to get the price of printer paid to opposite party no.2 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of loss he suffered in his business due to faulty printer, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Epson L565 Multi-Function Inkjet Printer (Black) from opposite party no.2 for Rs.17,929/- vide bill bearing no.12142/2015-16/394 dated 16.02.2016 and paid the amount from Paytm account, as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that after about 3 months from its purchase the printer started giving problem in printing and started showing error F-1 due to which printing page sticks in printer and stop button of printer also stop working at that time and for printing again complainant had to start the printer again and after starting the printer again took 15-20 minutes to start printing. He is running his stationary shop near school and printer is the main part of his business. He lodged his complaint with opposite party no.2 regarding fault of printer on 12.5.2016, 2.7.2016, 13.8.2016, 15.8.2016, 7.9.2016, 22.10.2016 and lastly on 27.10.2016 and last complaint no. is 2859207. Out of above complaints, the opposite party no.1 being service center of the opposite party no.2, repaired the printer so many times by coming at his shop, but the problem still exists in printer as printer works properly for some time after its repair every time, but no permanent solution given by opposite party no.1 till date. He requested the opposite parties to either replace the printer or pay the amount of bill with interest as his business is suffering badly  due to faulty printer and till date he has suffered more than 20,000/- loss but of no use. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is without any merits and without any cause of action against the opposite party and no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint; this Ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not authorized dealer, nor the manufacturer of the big power solutions and is dealing with the repairs of the Big Power Solutions and as such as per the demand and instructions of the complainant the opposite party had repaired the Multi Function Inkjet Printer of the complainant. The complainant has installed the printer in an open shop on road side and the printer was not covered with any glass and the optical sensor of the printer consumed the dust on the drum and stop its working. The opposite party has provided service to remove the fault of the printer on various request made by the complainant and also requested to the complainant to take precaution for the dust consumed by the optical sensor of the printer but the complainant fails to take precaution. It was next submitted that the opposite party is not the manufacturer of printer and cannot replace the printer and pay the amount of bill with interest to the complainant All other averments made in the compl aint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Opposite parties were proceeded against exparte party vide order dated 29.11.2017 as they have not produced the evidence despite availed five opportunities and also did not deposit the costs.

6.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the complainant) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the intentional absence/midway hiving-off/optional ex-parte proceedings by the titled opposite parties despite the available opportunities/ proven notice/service of summons; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth through by the learned counsel for the complainant.

7.       We find that the complainant had directly purchased (affidavit Ex.Cw-1/A) one pc of Inkjet Printer L565 Epson Make vide Invoice # 142142/394 and Order # 1536483931 both dated 16.02.2016 (Ex.C1 & Ex.C2) for Rs.17,929/- (paid vide Paytm basis) duly assuring its working order status with its usual warranty for parts etc. However, within a period of three months, the printer fell in an ‘out of order’/defective condition and also lacked in measures of ‘standard cum quality’ with those assured/ advertised. The complainant had approached the opposite party1 service-point centre (as designated by the OP2 supplier vendor), many a time, with his instant grievance but found no relief at their hands by way of satisfactory repairs/replacement/refund and thus prompted the present complaint.

8.       We find that the complainant’s consumer rights have indeed been determined since the Opposite Party 2 vendors have intentionally opted for the    ex-parte proceedings right from the beginning of the instant proceedings whereas the OP1 service-centre appeared but to fade away into ex-parte status after having filed its written-statement disclosing therein of its interse relation with the OP2 on service-contract basis, only. The OP1 service provider has duly deposed that the printer (in question) is operated in dusty situational conditions with no protective glass-covers to save it from dust/heat and that causes mischief. Otherwise, going by the old and accepted norms we may have judicially presumed that the ex-parte titled opposite parties never had any defense to prosecute/plead in their support.

9.       No doubt, we shall be at a judicious discretionary liberty to draw an adverse ‘judicial inference’ by virtue of a plethora of superior courts judgments that the ex-parte litigants do not have ‘defense’ to prosecute and thus they instead prefer to go ‘ex-parte’. The above legal proposition holds true since more than a century old legal history of Indian law and its collateral jurisprudence. However, we (in line with the settled law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardee’ and/or to cast undue excessive ‘distress’ to the otherwise non-guilty parties.           

10.     In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP1 to finally repair/ service the printer upon request of the complainant to its best but free of cost and upto the complainant’s satisfaction who is also directed to provide a dust-free working environment to his computer equipment(s).

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

January,08 2018                                                     Member

*MK*