For the Complainant                      -Mr. Arnab Kumar Khatua, Advocate

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant, in brief; is that on 31.07.2018 he purchased one EPSON Printer M 100 (s2xy054159) from Compu Valley, stockiest and supplier of Computer Hardware against invoice No. CV/18-19/02127 on payment of Rs. 8,500/- and the warranty period of said printer was twelve months/5000 pages from the date of purchase. The technician of OP-1 installed the said printer on following day with an assurance that warranty slip will be issued within 07 working days by the OP-2. That on 08.08.2018 complainant received warranty slip from OP-2 but in the said warranty slip warranty period has been mentioned three months instead of one year. Complainant had been to the show room of OP-2 to rectify the warranty but the staff of OP-2 agreed that there is printing mistake on the warranty slip. They assured that complainant will get one year warranty as per policy of the said company. The subject printer was not working after four months from date of its purchase and the complainant docket a complaint to the OP-2. The official of OP-2 refused to repair the subject printer on the ground that warranty period has already been elapsed. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued legal notice to the OP-2 to repair the subject printer. Such notice was unattended. Hence, the consumer complaint.

OPs despite service of notices of the complaint have failed to file
WV within the limitation provided U/s 13 (2) of the CP Act, 1986. No request for condontion of delay or extension of time for filing WV was made. Thus, the right of OPs to file WV was closed vide order dated 13.11.2019.

Decision with Reasons

Complainant Sri Kingshuk Karmakar has filed his evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegation made in the complaint. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us through consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced in support of complaint. On perusal of the photocopy of purchase invoice dated 31.07.2018 issued by OP-2 to the complainant, it is clear that vide said purchase invoice complainant purchased one EPSON Printer M 100 (s2xy054159) against payment of Rs. 8,500/- and its warranty period was 12 months. The allegation of the complainant is that on the following day of purchase, the technician of OPs installed the printer and despatched warranty slip showing its warranty for three months instead of one year. The subject printer was not working after four months of its installation and the matter was reported to the OPs for repairing. On perusal of installation and demo slip issued by the technician of OP-2, it appears that the warranty period of the printer was twelve months. Complainant vide letters dated  05.10.2018, 23.12.2018, 17.02.2019 & 02.07.2019 requested to OP-2 to repair the subject printer but the service centre/OP-2 refused to repair the same on the ground that the warranty period of subject printer was elapsed. The OPs have opted not to file WV despite service of notices of the complaint, the above allegation of the complainant is deemed to have been admitted as correct. In order to prove said allegation, the complainant has field his affidavit reaffirming the allegation. Thus, it stands to prove that despite of warranty period, the OP-2 being the seller has failed to repair the subject printer and/or refund the purchase amount of the printer to the complainant. In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the warranty of twelve months, we have no hesitation in concluding that the OPs have committed deficiency in service as also have indulged in unfair trade practice. In the complaint petition, the complainant has prayed for refund of purchase amount of Rs. 8,500/- with interest  at the rate of18  percentp.a., compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. In our considered view, the OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace the subject EPSON Printer M 100 (s2xy054159) and/or alternatively refund Rs. 8,500/- with Simple Interest  at the rate of5  percentp.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.07.2019.

For the reason aforesaid, the complaint is allowed against the OPs ex parte with following directions:-

1. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace EPSON Printer M 100 (s2xy054159) and/or refund Rs. 8,500/- (Rupees eight thousand five hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest  at the rate of5  percentp.a. from 12.07.2019 till realization.

2. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation cost.

    The above directions be complied by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act, 1986 against the OPs.

Order be communicated to the complainant as per rules.