Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/188

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kyocera Documents Solutions India - Opp.Party(s)

Manjit singh complainant

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:188 dated 18.04.2019.                                 

                       Date of decision: 08.06.2023

 

Manjit Singh Sethi 52 years s/o Tarlok Singh Sethi, r/o 538, St. No.1, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Kyocera Document Solutions India Pvt. Ltd, Second Floor, Tower C, Centrum Plaza, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through Partap Singh, Regional Service Manager-North.

2.Manmohan Singh c/o Star Business Systems, 130, Lajpat Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana-141001 Punjab, Email:

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Amandeep Singh Arora, Advocate.

 

ORDER

 

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Cruxly put forth the case of the complainant is that he purchased new printer FS 1020 of OP1 with the features of print, scan and copy from online store ‘Moglix’ after paying Rs.7324/- and the product was delivered at the residence of complainant on 22.04.2018. Warranty of one year was given by the OPs at the time of sale of the said product. As per the complaint, the said printer stopped working on 07.03.2019. As the OP2 being the authorized service centre of OP1, the complainant informed OP2 on 09.03.2019 at their email address regarding not working of printer after switching on. OP2 vide email communication dated 15.03.2019 asked the complainant to share the contact details or call at the number 8591074477. The complainant made a call on 16.03.2019 whereby OP2 asked for nature of defect and requested to send the damage plastic part and on receiving snap of such parts, he refused to carry on the repair under warranty and advised to get the repair/service subject to cost as damaged plastic part is required to change and disclosed that this may cost upto Rs.2000/- including visiting/service charges Rs.550/- but the same has not been done despite requests by the complainant. Thereafter, OP2 vide its communication dated 18.03.2019 send the mail to the OP1 with copy of quotation communicated to the complainant as under:-

“As per his visit, it is found that parts PWB Assy Main faulty, and same is not in under warranty because compatible toner use in printer. So, please find the below price:

Parts PWB Assy Main Rs.8706/- + 18% taxes

Kindly approve it and share the purchase order so that they can resolve the issue asap.”

 

It has been submitted that the complainant vide email dated 19.03.2019 sent to the OPs asked them to share inspection copy of site inspection in his presence but OP2 vide email dated 20.03.2019 sent two snaps showing defective part and photo of toner cartridge showing display as K-TK1114. It has been alleged in the complaint that despite sending various emails to the OPs, they have taken the objection of compatible tonner use in printer just for denying their obligation towards the warranty. Such act and conduct of OPs is claimed to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In the end, the complainant has made a prayer to direct the OP to replace the defective parts or repair as the case may be as well as extending the warranty period and in case of incapability to do so, prayer for replacement of the printer with new one or refund the printer amount of Rs.7324/- has also been made. Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation also claimed.

2.                Upon notice of the complaint, opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material and true facts; complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties as OP2 Manmohan Singh is merely an employee of OP1 and he has no concern or link in any manner with the firm M/s Star Business System. The said firm is having a separate identity and has nothing to do with the matter involved in the complaint. As per own version of the complainant, he has purchased the product through online by placing an order on website www.moglix.com but the complainant did not implead the said Moglix as party to the complaint. The firm M/s Star Business System is merely a dealer of OP1 and it has no service centre of products of OP1.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 and 2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. They further alleged that the complainant has utterly failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the warranty card and mishandled with the printer by use of compatible/duplicate toner cartridge of other local brand than the prescribed one. Further, it has been submitted that the complainant himself admits that the product stopped working in the month of March, 2019 which means the product worked regularly for 11 months from the date of purchase and it means that there was no manufacturing defect. Further, it has been submitted that it was only due to the negligence of the complainant while using the local brand toner cartridge than the prescribed one, further damaged has occurred to the printer. Further, the complainant has not followed the instructions duly mentioned in the warranty card. Further, it has been submitted that to sort out the dispute, the OP1 even offer to again send the engineer for inspection of the printer and necessary repairs vide email dated 21.03.2019 but the complainant vide reply dated 21.3.2019 as mentioned in para no.13 of the complaint, did not allow the engineer to check the printer. Moreover, the officials of OP1 had also sent email to the complainant and offered him that he wishes, they can sent their engineer to recheck the machine. It has been further submitted that the MRP of the product is Rs.11,000/- and the MRP cost of the damaged part i.e. PWB Assembly Main is Rs.8706/-. The PWB Assembly Main is the major part of the printer product which is also called as “mother board’ and the hardware/ICs or other parts are non-removable from the said mother board and thus the complete PWB Assembly main was required to be replaced and the MRP cost of which is Rs.8706/- and due to failure at the end of the complainant while using the duplicate toner/cartridge, which void the warranty and as such, the product of the complainant did not come under the purview of warranty. The offer for second inspection was made only because of insistence of the complainant and to sort out the dispute, if any and the spare part i.e. PWB Assembly Main was installed in the printer of the complainant on 31.07.2019 and it started working since then. Opposite party No.1 and 2 denied any deficiency in service on their part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of invoice dated 16.04.2018 qua the purchase of the printer in question for total sale consideration of Rs.7324/-, Ex.C2 is the copy of track order report qua the ordered product placed with the OPs by the complainant, Ex.C3 to Ex.C11 are the copies of emails correspondence between the complainant and OPs, Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 are copies of service call report issued by the OPs to the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manmohan Singh, Senior Customer Service Engineer of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 i.e.copy of warranty card, Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 are the copies of photographs of the printer in question, Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 are the copies of service call reports dated 31.07.2019 and 22.08.2019 respectively and Ex.R6 is copy of status report of printer in question and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant a practicing Lawyer, on 22.04.2018 purchased a new printer of OP1 having features of printing, scanning and copying from online of ‘Moglix’ having a warranty of one year. On 07.03.2019, the complainant experienced mal-functioning in the printer and the matter was brought into the notice of the OPs. Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 are the series of emails exchanged between the complainant and the OPs. One Manmohan Singh, Service Engineer(OP2) inspected the product on 16.03.2019 and he was of the opinion that the complainant has been mishandling with the product as the original prescribed toner as advised was not used by the complainant but he had used the compatible/duplicate or lower quality toner/product which has resulted in damage of the plastic part and PWB Assembly main of the product and therefore, the OPs are of the view that it amounts to breach in warranty and it is not a manufacturing defect. Feeling aggrieved with the conduct of the OPs, the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 18.04.2019 with the prayer to replace the defective parts or repair the printer along with extending the warranty period and in case, the OPs failed to do so, they replaced the defective printer with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.7324/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Further, the complainant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- from the OPs.

7.                However, in order to sort out the issue, the OPs replaced the PWB Assembly Main Board on 31.07.2010 vide service call report Ex.R4. But the complainant did not accord his satisfaction. Further on 22.08.2019, a new PWB Assembly Main Board was installed in the printer of the complainant vide service call report Ex.R5 and the cost of the same was about Rs.8706/-. The complainant appended his signature acknowledging the fact that the product is working fine now. However, the complainant continued to use the product and sometime did not disclose this fact in the affidavit tendered during the course of proceedings. Strangely, on 16.08.2022, the complainant moved another application for allowing examination of printer FS1020 of the OPs wherein he has alleged that the product is out of order since 13.01.2020.

8.                From the perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the complainant had used the product for 11 months and when the product warranty was on the verge of expiry, the complaint was lodged. The examination of the product was promptly conducted on 16.03.2019 where defect of PWB Assembly Main Board was detected. The PWB Assembly Main part is oftenly called as mother board of the printer. It can be borne from the record that the complainant had been using the local branch toner instead of prescribed original compatible toner which obviously contributed to damage of PWB Assembly Main Board of the printer. At any point of time, the complainant had not denied for re-inspection as offered by the OPs. It is admitted fact that the defective part of the printer stands replaced and the defects stands rectified and thereafter, the complainant had used that product for sufficient time. Now the complainant has raised another grievances that now the product has stopped functioning again. In this regard, reference can be made to Supriyo Raychaudhuri vs. GTPL Kolkata Cable and Broadband Pariseva Ltd., 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 124 whereby it has been held as under:-

“Using goods for a long time cannot be called a deficiency in service:- After using the first set-top box for many years and when a new set-top box was replaced free of cost, the complainant cannot say that there was ‘deficiency in service’ by alleging that the replaced set-top box was defective.”

9.                From the sequence of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the complainant has failed to establish his case that there is any deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite parties and therefore, this complaint being devoid of any merits is dismissed.   

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.06.2023

Gurpreet Sharma