BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 227/2012 Filed on 17.07.2012
Dated : 15.01.2013
Complainant:
Ravikrishnan. N.R, Advocate, 101 # NSP Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party :
The Managing Director, Epson India Pvt. Ltd., 12th Floor, The Millenia, Tower A. No.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
This O.P having been heard on 03.01.2013, the Forum on 15.01.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
The complainant in this case is an advocate. The opposite party is the manufacturer of computer accessories and other electronic devices. The complainant placed an order for the purchase of a printer manufactured by the opposite party through an on-line shopping site for an amount of Rs. 2,999/- viz Epson Stylus TX 121 All in one printer. The said product was delivered to the complainant on 28.05.2011 vide a courier service. The invoice date shown in the delivery chalan was 23.05.2012. Complainant has sparingly used the printer as the ink of the same was very expensive. Even though the printer was sparingly used, quite surprising to the complainant, the same became dead on 15.06.2012 and the same was not able to be switched on. The complainant alleges that he never expected a quick death of the printer than too within two years from the date of delivery. The printer was taken to the authorized service centre on 22.06.2012. They inspected the same and told that the mother board as well as some other components had become defective and the same is to be replaced. They told the complainant that the same will cost about Rs. 1,800/-. The complainant was shocked to hear this as the total cost of the printer was only Rs. 2,999/-. The complainant took back the same as he fully know that he could purchase a new ink jet printer for Rs. 1,800/-. The complainant was reluctant to spend such a huge amount as far as the printer's price is concerned. He further submits that the mother board is the main component as far as the printer is concerned and the impugned printer became dead due to the manufacturing defect in the mother board of the printer. He submits that he is legally entitled to get replacement of the impugned printer with a defect free one or the price of the same from the opposite party. The opposite party is guilty of selling a defective printer to the complainant which did not even work properly for two years and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party for selling him a defective machine and cost of the litigation for dragging the complainant to this unwarranted litigation by supplying him with a defective machine. Hence this complaint.
The opposite party in this complaint accepted notice of this complaint, but not turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite party remained ex-parte.
Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced one document which is marked as Ext. P1.
Points to be ascertained are:-
Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?
Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant had purchased the printer manufactured by the opposite party on 28.05.2011 for Rs. 2,999/-. Ext. P1 is the receipt for that. But the printer became totally defective on 15.06.2012. The complainant approached the authorized service centre on 22.06.2012 and they inspected and told that the motherboard as well as the components became defective and the same is to be replaced. They told that the same will cost about Rs. 1,800/-. The complainant was shocked to hear this as the total cost of the printer was only Rs. 2,999/-. The complainant alleges that the printer became dead due to the manufacturing defect in the motherboard of the printer. Hence he claimed that he is legally entitled to get the replacement of the impugned printer with a defect free one or the price of the same from the opposite party. To prove his contentions he has filed proof affidavit and produced the delivery chalan as Ext. P1. The opposite party never appeared to contest the case. Hence they remained ex-parte. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Hence there is no need for the proceedings under Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. From the available evidence we find that there is unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party by selling a defective printer to the complainant which did not work properly even for one year. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to provide the complainant with a defect free printer of the same make or pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 999/- is deducted as depreciation from Rs. 2,999/-), the price of the printer. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amounts till the date of realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of January 2013.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 227/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of delivery challan
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
