By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint filed is under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.34,999/- being the price of printer and to give compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a samsung printer bearing Model No.SCX6122FN on 23./3/10 from the 1^st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.34,999/- towards the value of the product. The Complainant noticed certain defects in the machine. The printer was not functioning properly and began to make sounds and papers got inside the printer. The Complainant gave the machine for repair with 1^st Opposite party and the 1^st Opposite Party gave back the machine stating that the machine was in good condition. But in fact, the machine was not working. On several occasions, the Complainant gave the printer to 1^st Opposite Party and it was returned without curing the defects. The Complainant insisted the Opposite parties to replace the machine with a new one together with expenses incurred. But Opposite Parties not acted upon. Aggrieved by this, the Complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1^st Opposite party, 1^st Opposite Party contented that 1^st Opposite party is only a distributor and dealer of goods on behalf of 2^nd Opposite Party. The warranty is given by 2^nd Opposite Party as per terms and conditions of manufacture. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite Party contended that in printer is purchased from 1^st Opposite Party on 23.03.2010. The company is giving warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. On 20.02.2011 and 18.03.2011, the petitioner complained about his samsung printer with the company and the company's Engineer visited and repaired the set by replacing some parts, there is no charge collected from the petitioner since under warranty period. On 09.04.2012, 03.05.2011 also the Complainant registered complaints and rectified. The refund of money request of complaint is rejected by the company since it is out of warranty period. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite Party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and commission report is marked as Ext.X1 and MO1 is marked. 1^st Opposite party not adduced any evidence. 2^nd Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1. On going through the evidence and documents, the Forum found that the Complainant had complained about the defects of the machine on several occasions before the expiry of warranty period. After the expiry period also, the Complainant made complaints about the defects. The Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant had made complaints on several occasions before the expiry period and after. The case of 2^nd Opposite party is that 2^nd Opposite Party's service persons serviced the machine free of cost during warranty period on several occasions. But the defects of the printer is not cured totally by the Opposite Parties and is still existing. The commissioner inspected the machine and reported in Ext.X1 report that the printer is having paper jam which is due to the Complaint of the printer. The Commissioner reported that the defect is due to the bad quality of service provided by the manufacturer or it may be due to the manufacturing defect of the printer. The Complainant have continuous cause of action since he had complained about the defect before and after the warranty period. 1^st Opposite Party is only a dealer and it is duty of 2^nd Opposite Party to cure the defects of the machine. The Forum found deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite Party is giving proper service to the printer and to cure the defect fully. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.34,999/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Nine) only to the Complainant as the value of printer and 2^nd Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Complainant shall return the defective printer purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party to 2^nd Opposite Party on receipt of the above amount. The 2^nd Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of May 2015.

Date of Filing:23.03.2012.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Pushparajan. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Abdul Basheer Service Engineer, Samsung,

Malappuram.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. dt:23.03.2010.

A2. Copy of Letter.

A3(a). Copy of Letter. dt:03.05.2011.

A3(b) Copy of Letter.

A4. Authorisation.

X1. Letter. dt:12.09.2014.

MO1. Printer.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.