Haryana

Karnal

CC/521/2020

M/s Fashion n Design Inc. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s EPSONS OA Compserve Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Rana

09 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 521 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.19.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:09.08.2022

 

M/s Fashion n Design Inc., plot no.195, Sector-3, HSIIDC, Karnal (a partnership firm) through its authorized person Shri Sandeep Goel son of Shri Satish Kumar Goel, resident of School Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                  …….Complainant.

                                         Versus

 

1.     M/s EPSONS OA Compserve Pvt. Ltd., 16/8, 3^rd floor, Arya Smaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi through its Director and Mr. Akhtar Imam (Senior Manager Channel Sales).

2.     EPSONS India Pvt. Ltd. having its corporate office at 12^th floor, Millenia, Tower-A, no.1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Banglore-560008 and its Delhi office-M-12-M-16-A, Mezzine floor, 89, Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Palace, New Delhi, through its Director and Mr. Akhtar Imam (Senior Manager Channel Sales).

3.     M/s Evertight, Astners, F-9, Focal Point Extension Jalandhar-155004, through Mr. Gobinder Singh.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh. Ashok Kumar Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                           Opposite parties exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER: 

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on averments complainant is a reputed manufacturer and marketers of High Quality garments etc. having its manufacturing unit at the above given address and has installed this machine in his unit for his livelihood purpose and the machine was not purchased for reselling or trading purpose and was purchased only for its own use. The complainant was planning to purchase a sub colour machine for its plant. During that time one of the representatives of OPs has contacted to the complainant and shown a gloomy picture about the required product and also made a commitment that the OPs will provide the best after sale services. These services would include in the cost of the machine. Subsequently, the complainant has purchased the machine through invoice no.451 dated 11.01.2019 amounting to Rs.11,39,998/-. The description of the machine is EPSON Surecolor 2130 having serial no.X-47000033 from the OP no.2 who is the manufacturer of the machine through OP no.3 who is the dealer. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the machine and the OP no.3 is the dealer of OP no.1 who has sold the machinery to the complainant. OP no.1 is the service provider and is working under the instructions of OP no.2.

2.             It is averred that since the very beginning there was some problem occurred in the running of the printer and was intimated to the OPs. Initially, OPs have entertained the complaints of complainant, but thereafter OPs ignored the complainant. Complainant is in touch with OPs since January, 2019. A number of mails have been exchanged with the OPs by the complainant, in addition to the telephonic call. A few mails has been entertained by EPSON help desk and also by Rajesh Sharma, Shivan etc. who are the authorized person of OPs. Even at the initial stage, OPs have sent the engineer on time for addressing the complaints. It is further averred that again complainant was facing problem in running the machine due to poor working of the print head and accordingly he contacted the OPs, but at that time OP no.2 straightway refused that he cannot get any help in repairing the print head and advice to contact to the OP no.1. Though the OP no.2 is equally liable for providing the after sale services to complainant. Then complainant contacted the OP no.1 and OP no.1 has asked to contact the service partner of OP. Then complainant contacted the service partner of OP i.e. OA COMPSERVE Pvt. Ltd. but it demanded Rs.4500/- as visiting fees of their engineer, because the business of complainant suffering very badly, he paid the said amount through RTG mode. After receiving the visiting charges one Mr. Anas has visited the factory of complainant and within ten minutes he has declared Print Head is defective and is liable to be replaced. This company has also send a proposal for AMC of EPSONS, vide reference no/OACPL/2019-2020/AMC 203 of net amounting Rs.1,08,195/-. Thereafter, complainant has made repeated request through various mails to OPs no.1 and 2 for repairing the print head and make the machinery in working condition but always complainant received an evasive reply. OP no.1 has also send a proposal for part of EPSONS F-2130 vide reference no.OACPL/2020-21/RO47 dated 08.08.2020, the amount for replacement of the printer head has been mentioned Rs.103655/-. From all the communications and proposals exchanged with OPs, proves that OPs have make a cartel to grab the money from complainant by one pretext or the other and it has clearly been revealed from the communications. The machine is manufactured by OP no.2 and supplied by OP no.3 and service agency i.e. OP no.1 is also partner/business associate of OP no.2, all the OPs in connivance with each other to grab the money from complainant. The relevant mails are reproduced as under:-

        “Mail dated 28.08.2020 from Shri Rajesh Sharma

        AMC can be enrolled, once printer is in fully working condition.  

Please refer the quote share by service center & once your printer is then we will process AMC same time upon your approval.

Mail dated 28.08.2020

Again endorsed the complaint.

Mail dated 28.08.2020 from Shri Rajesh Sharma

Kindly approve the quotation shared by our service partner, so that, will set your printer ready. ASAP”.

Till date inspite of numerous requests and mails, OPs have not make the machine of complainant in working condition. OPs have never informed that AMC is going to be expired and lateron, OPs have impose some conditions for renewal of AMC. OPs have never send any mail or correspondence regarding AMC to Fashion ‘n’ Design Inc. nor OPS have given any intimation or offer to complainant for renewing the AMC. It is further averred that OPs send the quotation of AMC and imposed a condition that printer must be in fully working condition, because OPs are well aware that there is defect in the printer since beginning, that’s why OPs have imposed the said condition. OPs have to provide after sale services to complainant for which OPs have already charged the cost added in the cost of the machine. Then complainant has sent a legal notice dated 18.09.2020 to which OPs has replied through mail dated 25.09.2020 and admitted that they are responsible for after sale services. Inspite of various reminders and communications, OPs are not paying any attention to the genuine request of complainant whereas the work in the complainant’s establishment has been suffered due to non-functioning of the aforesaid machine, this fact brought to the knowledge of the OPs, but they could not turned up. It is need of hour for arranging some alternate and/or to replace the parts of the machine in order to run the establishment, but OPs failed to do so. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Initially, Miss Suksham Aggarwal Advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs  and the case was adjourned for filing written version, but OPs did not file its written version after availing several opportunities. On 30.07.2021 none has put in appearance on behalf of OPs, hence exparte proceeded initiated against the OPs.

3.             OPs had challenged the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Commission before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission set aside the said order, vide order dated 06.09.2021. The conclusion para of the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission, is reproduced as under:-

“5.    Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 30.07.2021, passed by District Commission to the extent of proceeding ex-parte against opposite parties No.1 & 2 is set aside and opposite parties No.1 & 2 granted one opportunity to file the written version. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall appear before the District Commission on 07.09.2021 and file their written version. The order is however, subject to costs of Rs.7500/- to be paid by opposite parties No.1 & 2 while putting in appearance before the District Commission on 07.09.2021. The cost shall thereafter be disbursed to the complainant.”

 

4.             Despite the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission, none has appeared on behalf of OPs 07.09.2021.

5.             On 25.11.2021 the complaint was fixed for arguments. Learned counsel for the OPs moved an application for grant of extension of time and one more opportunity for filing the written version with cost in compliance of order dated 06.09.2021 passed by Hon’ble State Commission in Revision Petition no.21/2019. The said application has been dismissed by this Commission vide detailed order dated 11.04.2022. Thereafter, none has put in appearance on behalf of the OPs.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, copy of invoice Ex.C1, copy of transaction ID payment detail Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 08.08.2020 Ex.C3, copy of email dated 28.08.2020 Ex.C4, copies of mail dated 11.01.2019 Ex.C5, copy of proposal of AMC Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 14.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for complainant has tendered Insurance Inquiry Evertight Fasteners Ex.C10 and closed his additional evidence on 04.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

9.             As per the version of the complainant, he is a manufacturer and marketers of High Quality garments. The complainant had purchased a sub colour machine from the OPs, vide invoice no.451 dated 11.01.2019 amounting to Rs. 11,39,998/-. Since the very beginning there was some problem occurred in the running of the printer and was intimated to the OPs. Initially, OPs have entertained the complaints of complainant, but thereafter OPs ignored the complainant. A number of mails have been sent to the OPs by the complainant in addition to the telephonic calls. A few mails have been entertained by EPSON help desk of OPs. Even at the initial stage, OPs have sent the engineer for redressing the grievance of the complainant. The complainant had started again facing the problem in running the machine due to poor working of the print head and accordingly he contacted the OPs, but they straightway refused to repair the print head. Thereafter, complainant contacted the service partner of OPs but they demanded Rs.4500/- as visiting fees of their engineer as the business of complainant suffering very badly, he paid the said amount through RTG mode. After receiving the visiting charges one Mr. Anas visited the factory of complainant and within ten minutes he declared Print Head is defective and is liable to be replaced. Thereafter, complainant has made repeated request through various mails to OPs for repairing the print head and to make the machinery in working condition but complainant always received an evasive reply. All the communications and proposals exchanged with OPs, prove that OPs have make a cartel to grab the money from complainant by one pretext or the other. Till date inspite of numerous requests and mails, OPs did not make the machine of complainant in working condition. OPs have never informed about the expiry of AMC and lateron they have imposed some conditions for renewal of AMC. OPs have never send any mail or correspondence regarding AMC to Fashion ‘n’ Design Inc. neither OPs have given any intimation nor any offer to complainant for renewing the AMC. Inspite of various reminders and communications, OPs are not paying any attention to the genuine request of complainant.

10.           To prove his version complainant relied upon the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. It is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C1 dated 11.01.2019 that complainant has purchased the unit in question from the OPs amounting to Rs. 11,39,998/-. It is also evident from Ex.C3 dated 08.08.2020 the amount of Rs.103655/-, for replacement of the printer head, has been paid by complainant to OPs. It is also evident from the correspondence Ex.C4 to Ex.C9, the defect occurred in the printer head since from the very beginning and complainant had been continuously complaining to the OPs. Sometimes the complaints of the complainant were entertained by the OPs. It is also evident from the Insurance Enquiry Evertight Fasteners Ex.C10 that machines comes within one year on site warranty which starts from the date of installation of the machine covering print head.  It has been proved on record that the defects have occurred in the machine in question during the warranty period.

12.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

13.           In view of the above discussion, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, OPs are liable to replace the machine in question alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the machine in question to the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby to be made clear that in case if the machine of the same make and model is not available with the OPs, then the OPs will return the cost of the machine in question i.e. Rs.11,39,998/- to the complainant by handing over the defective machine in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:09.08.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member