Haryana

Ambala

CC/90/2021

Ranbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sourabh Techforce Infotech Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Dilbagh Singh Behgal

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	90 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	17.02.2021
Date of decision	:	02.11.2023

Ranbir Singh Son of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Thol, District Kurukshetra (Haryana)

…..Complainant

Vs.

1. SOURABH TECHFORCE INFOTECH TECHNOLOGY, SCO-101, Ghandhi Market, Ambala Cantt-133001 (through its Prop).
2. EPSON Printer Costumer Care Centre, 62 CNI Church Compound, Nigar Wali Gali, Gandhi Market, Punjabi Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Ghandhi Market, Ambala Cantt. (Through its Service Manager)
3. EPSON INDIA, M-12-M16A, MAZZBINE FLOOR 89, HEMKUNT CHAMBERS, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110011 (Through its M.D.)
4. EPSON INDIA PVT. LTD. 12th Floor, The Millenia, Tower-A, No-1, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 (Through its M.D.)

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Dilbagh Singh Behgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Bharat Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                    Shri Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 to 4.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay cost of Rs.8,000/-, of EPSON Printer for not removing the defects therein alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase till realization or replace the EPSON PRINTER with new one upper Model.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- for harassment mental pain, agony and loss of earning caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

   

2.           Brief facts of this case are that OP No.1 is the Local dealer of EPSON PRINTER; OP No.2 is service centre of EPSON PRINTER and OPs No.3 and 4 are main head office & Manufacturer Company. Vide bill No.2581 dated 27.11.2019, the complainant had purchased a EPSON PRINTER 9 pin (HSN 84433220 LX 310) from OP No.1, on making payment of Rs.8,000/-, yet,  the name of complainant was not mentioned on the said bill despite requests having been made by the complainant. The complainant is having 100 TON Computerized WEIGHING BALANCE (Dharam Kanta) for weighing Rice, Wheat of Govt. Agency like DFSC, FCI and others and weight slip was issued to the customers through the said printer. After six months, the above said EPSON PRINTER started giving troubles like automatic switch off or not printing the bill correctly. The complainant approached OP No.1, who advised the complainant to contact on toll free no. of service centre. Upon doing so by the complainant,  representative of the service care centre lodged complaint No-1007422396. On 22 May 2020, complainant received a call from the representative of OP No.2 and was asked to come present at the premises of OP No.2.  On 04 June 2020 the complainant went to the service centre of OP No.2 where he was assured that the printer will be made perfect in two days but to no avail.  The complainant approached the OPs number of times, in the matter for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint filed by the complainant is false;   OP no.1 is only the seller and is not authorized for after sale service; after sales complaints and service/repair of the product is handled/rectified by OP no. 2 itself; OP no.1 is not responsible or liable for any defect or complaint of the product etc. On merits, it has been stated that it was the complainant who himself asked for bill without name. The OP no.1 has been issuing bill in name of the purchaser or as asked by the purchaser. It is a matter of record that the complainant reported problem in the printer and visited the service centre.  OP no.1 has not sold the defective printer to the complainant. The delivery of the printer was taken by the complainant after checking and verifying it. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OPs No.2 to 4 appeared and filed written version raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts; he is not consumer etc. On merits, it has been stated that it is correct that the complainant had purchased a EPSON printer LX-310 (Int'l) Impact printer on 27.11.2019. It is false that OPs deliberately did not add the name of the purchaser on the bill or that the complainant gave any notice with regard to this fact at any time.  As a matter of fact, only as a typographical error, the name of purchaser was not mentioned in the bill, and the complainant even never asked to correct the said error too but the complainant had been availing benefits of service and warranty on the same bill only. Upon complaint of the complainant, the Service Engineer visited the spot and the problem was resolved by changing the printer board and minor service. However, it took some time for the said part to come from the head office of the company from Bangalore to Ambala due to complete lockdown in the Country because of COVID 19. However, as soon as the said part was received by the company, the engineer of the company got the same replaced and printer was brought into working condition on 15.06.2020 and the complainant was informed of the same. The complainant himself received the printer back in proper working condition on 17.06.2020 and accepted in writing that "Printer is OK, working fine". Since then, the complainant has not made a single complaint to the OPs regarding working of printer and has been using it. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.2 to 4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Saurabh Lamba son of Ashok Lamba, Authorized Signatory M/s Techforce Infotech Technology as Annexure R-1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.2 to 4 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs No.2 to 4 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 06.06.2023. 
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 4 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           During arguments, learned counsel for the complainant took similar pleas as have been taken in the complaint and submitted that despite the fact that printer in question was suffering from manufacturing defects, as it did not work despite efforts made by engineers of the OPs to rectify the same and still it is lying non-functional as it is beyond use but on the other hand, by neither replacing the same with a new one or in the alternative refunding the price of the same, the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that the printer in question was delivered to the complainant in a perfect working condition and that too after his full satisfaction.
9.           Learned counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 submitted that on receipt of complaint regarding some defect in the printer, the engineer of OPs No.2 to 4 visited the premises of the complainant and resolved the defect therein by replacing printer board and did minor service on 15.06.2020. He further submitted that it took some time for receiving the part of the printer due to lockdown in the country because of COVID-19.  He further submitted that the complainant himself has accepted in writing on 17.06.2020 that the printer is fine and working OK. Since then complainant has not made a single complaint to the OPs regarding working of the printer. No expert report has been produced by the complainant to the effect that printer in question is suffering from any defect and is beyond use, after replacing the motherboard and minor service having been done on 15.06.2020.
10.           The complainant has pleaded that the OPs failed to repair the printer in question and the same is beyond use. On the other hand the stand of OPs No.2 to 4 is that after removing the defects of the printer in question, same was handed over to the complainant and he accepted this fact in writing that the printer is fine and working OK and since then complainant has not made a single complaint to the OPs regarding non-working of the printer.  It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant has not produced any evidence in the shape of any expert report or otherwise, to prove his submissions to the effect that the printer in question is still suffering from defect and it is still beyond use or non- functional after replacing its board and minor service having been done on 15.06.2020.  Mere replacement of board in question of the printer in question and that too free of cost will not entitle the complainant to seek refund of the amount paid by him towards the same.
11.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in this case. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.                

Announced:- 02.11.2023

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President