ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 18.09.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No. 28/2018 titled Aditya Sen Versus Epson India Corporate Office and others. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Aditya Sen filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant purchased photocopier machine from opposite party No. 3 manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in consideration amount of Rs. 185000/- (One lac eighty five thousand) on 02.03.2017 for self-employment. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have given warranty for one year qua photocopier machine. It is further pleaded that defect occurred in photocopier machine in question and complaint was filed on 23.05.2017. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not rectify defect in photocopier machine during warranty period and committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to refund consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 185000/- (One lac eighty. five thousand) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief for replacement of photocopier machine. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) as compensation for mental torture and harassment. In addition complainant sought payment of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed version pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant has violated terms and conditions, of warranty card and did not follow instructions issued by opposite parities in warranty card. It is further pleaded that complainant is running business of photocopy and internet point and photocopier machine in question is used for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that defect in photocopier machine in question occurred due to non-installation of photocopier machine in safe and dust free area. It is further pleaded that complainant used sub-standard papers in photocopier machine due to which head of printer got jammed. It is further pleaded that defect in photocopier in question was removed free of charges and opposite parties also supplied ink set and maintenance kit to complainant free of charges. It is pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that defect in photocopier in question was removed free of charges and opposite parties also supplied ink set and maintenance kit to complainant free of charges. It is pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite parties No. 1 and 2 sought. 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate version pleaded therein that complainant has purchased photocopier machine in question for commercial purpose and present consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that photocopier machine in question was manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded that warranty card was issued by manufacturing company. It is further pleaded that manufacturing company is under legal responsibility to repair and replace the defective goods during warranty period. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 3 is only authorized dealer of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded that authorized dealer is not liable to provide maintenance service to complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 3 did not visit to repair photocopier machine in question in premises of complainant because authorized dealer is not authorized to render maintenance service. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 3 has sold genuine product which was manufactured by Epson India. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint opposite party No. 3 sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned DCF/DCC dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondents No. 1 and 2. Co-respondent No. 3 did not appear before State Commission and co-respondent No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. 6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondents No. 1 and 2. Co-respondent No. 3 did not appear before State Commission and co-respondent No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether opinion of expert is essential relating to manufacturing defect in product and whether manufacturing company and dealer are under legal obligation to remove defect in product in question occurred during warranty period free of charges? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is running small scale business of photocopy and internet point and running the same himself for earning his livelihood at Bhojpur Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent purchased photocopier machine from opposite party No. 3 manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in consideration amount of Rs. 185000/- (One lac eighty five thousand) on 02.03.2017 with one year warranty. There is further recital in affidavit that after two months photocopier machine in question did not work properly and on 23.05.2017 deponent filed a complaint through email to company and company officials repaired it for ink system assy. There is further recital in affidavit that photocopier machine in question remained non-operative for about 15-20 (Fifteen to twenty) days. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter again on 30.06.2017 started creating problem and matter was reported to company by way of email. There is further recital in affidavit that photocopier machine. in question remained non-operative continuously for sufficient time and deponent sustained huge financial loss. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed affidavit of Jitender Guleria authorized signatory of Epson India in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is using photocopier machine in question for commercial purpose. in question remained non-operative continuously for sufficient time and deponent sustained huge financial loss. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed affidavit of Jitender Guleria authorized signatory of Epson India in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is using photocopier machine in question for commercial purpose. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is running business of photocopy having internet point at Sunder Nagar Market District Mandi H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant violated terms and conditions of usage of photocopier machine in question and mishandled photocopier machine and did not comply instructions issued by manufacturing company. There is further recital in affidavit that printer's head of photocopier machine in question was damaged by dust and due to usage of sub-standard papers. There is further recital in affidavit that printer of photocopier machine in question was got jammed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 replaced defective part of printer and supplied ink set and maintenance kit free of charges to complainant. 10. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not install photocopier machine in question in safe and dust free place despite instructions to complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 visited work place of complainant on 27.09.2017 alongwith its engineer but complainant did not allow engineer to perform his duty. There is further recital in affidavit that there was problem of paper jam error in photocopier machine in question. There is further recital in affidavit that there was no manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question. There is further recital in affidavit that problem occurred in photocopier machine in question due to improper usage of photocopier machine in question and due to mishandling of photocopier machine in question. 11. Opposite party No. 3 filed affidavit of Vinay Singh partner of M/s. V.J. Enterprises in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has purchased photocopier machine in question for commercial purpose from deponent which was manufactured by Epson India. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent did not provide any warranty of product in question. There is further recital in affidavit that manufacturing company provides warranty to consumer. It is admitted that deponent received consideration amount of photocopier machine in question from complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent did not provide any warranty of product in question. There is further recital in affidavit that manufacturing company provides warranty to consumer. It is admitted that deponent received consideration amount of photocopier machine in question from complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has approached Epson India directly. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent did not visit premises of complainant for repair of photocopier machine in question because deponent is not liable to render maintenance services to consumers. There is further recital in affidavit that maintenance services to consumers are provided by manufacturing company. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No. 3 is only authorized sale dealer of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question and opposite parties be directed to refund entire consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 185000/- (One lac eighty five thousand) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to complainant is decided accordingly. Complainant did not file affidavit of expert on record in order to prove that there was manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question. It is well settled law that manufacturing defect in product could be proved only by way of evidence of expert by way of affidavit. Sole affidavit of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question is not sufficient because complainant is not expert. 13. In the absence of expert opinion relating to manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question plea of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in photocopier machine in question is defeated on concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 2016(4) CPR 412 NC titled M/s. Tractor Dealers Farm Equipment and Machinery Company v. Ghan Shayam Maurya and others. : 2017(1) CPR 643 NC titled Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat v. M/s. R.K. Photostate & Communication and Others. 2017 (3) CPR 35 NC titled Mahender Kumar v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and another. 2018 (1) CPJ 425 NCtitled Pawan Kumar v. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and others. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be directed to replace original photocopier machine in question is decided accordingly. 2017 (3) CPR 35 NC titled Mahender Kumar v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. and another. 2018 (1) CPJ 425 NCtitled Pawan Kumar v. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and others. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be directed to replace original photocopier machine in question is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that no guarantee card was issued by opposite parties in favour of complainant qua photocopier machine in question. It is well settled law that product could be replaced only when guarantee card is issued by seller. In present matter only warranty card was issued by opposite parties. State Commission is of the opinion that guarantee card and warranty card are entirely two different concepts under laws. State Commission is of the opinion that in warranty card only defective parts of product in question is replaced free of charges during warranty period. 2018 (III) CPJ 473 NC titled Rajendra Chimanlal Mody v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and another. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant reported the matter to opposite parties relating to non-functioning of photocopier machine in question several times but defect in photocopier machine in question was not rectified by opposite parties. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties were under legal obligation to remove defect occurred in photocopier machine in question during warranty period free of charges. Opposite parties did not file affidavit of engineer in order to prove that defect in photocopier machine in question was removed satisfactorily to the satisfaction of complainant. Adverse inference is drawn against opposite parties for non-filing personal affidavit of engineer. Affidavit filed by Jitender Guleria on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is not sufficient because Jitender is not engineer of manufacturing company. Jitender has filed affidavit on the basis of derived knowledge only, Jitender has not personally inspected photocopier machine in question installed in work place of complainant. Affidavit filed by Jitender Guleria on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is not sufficient because Jitender is not engineer of manufacturing company. Jitender has filed affidavit on the basis of derived knowledge only, Jitender has not personally inspected photocopier machine in question installed in work place of complainant. No reason assigned by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as to why opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not file personal affidavit of official who has personally inspected photocopier machine in question at work place of complainant, State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for equitable compensation for mental agony and harassment. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and has paid Advocate fee and other expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for equitable litigation costs from opposite parties. 17. Even affidavit filed by Vinay Singh on behalf of opposite party No. 3 is also of no help to opposite parties because Vinay Singh has specifically mentioned in his personal affidavit that opposite party No. 3 did not personally visit work place of complainant where photocopier machine in question was installed. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Epson India that photocopier machine in question was installed by complainant at unsafe place and was not installed at dust free place and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not file personal affidavit of official who has personally visited work place of complainant where photocopier machine in question was installed. Adverse inference is drawn against Epson India. Plea of Epson India that photocopier machine in question was installed by complainant at place which was not free from dust is defeated on concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Epson India that sub-standard papers were used by complainant in printer's head of photocopier machine in question and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not file personal affidavit of official who has personally inspected photocopier machine in question in work place of complainant. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Epson India that sub-standard papers were used by complainant in printer's head of photocopier machine in question and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not file personal affidavit of official who has personally inspected photocopier machine in question in work place of complainant. No reason assigned by opposite parties as to why opposite parties did not file personal affidavit of official who has personally inspected photocopier machine in question at work place of complainant. Plea of opposite parties that sub-standard papers were used by complainant in photocopier machine in question is defeated on concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Epson India that ink set and maintenance kit were supplied to complainant free of costs by Epson India and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that even after supply of ink set and maintenance kit defect in photocopier machine in question remained in continuous operation. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to exonerate opposite parties from liability. It is well settled law that manufacturing company and dealer are under legal obligation to remove defect or replace defective part free of charges occurred during warranty period. 2018(III) CPJ 473 NC titled Rajendra Chimanlal Mody v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and another. 2000(1) CPJ 3 SCDRC, Punjab titled Eko Electronics v. Kuldip Sharma and others. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Epson India that photocopier machine in question was used by complainant for commercial purpose and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Complainant has specifically mentioned in consumer complaint and in personal affidavit that photocopier machine in question was used by complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence on record in order to prove that photocopier machine in question was not used by complainant for his self-employment. State Commission is of the opinion that matter of complainant falls within Explanation added in Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence on record in order to prove that photocopier machine in question was not used by complainant for his self-employment. State Commission is of the opinion that matter of complainant falls within Explanation added in Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Hence it is held that complainant falls within definition of consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Also see section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 22. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to consumer should be adopted by Consumer Authority. 2018(1) CLT 468 NC titled Union of India through GM Western Railway Versus Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant. In view of above stated facts and in view of ruling cited supra point No. 1 is partly answered in affirmative and partly answered in negative. Point No. 2: Final Order 23. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by complainant is partly allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace printer's head of photocopier machine in question free of charges within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. 24. It is further ordered that engineer of manufacturing company will file personal affidavit before learned DCF/DCC to the effect that defective parts of photocopier in question stood replaced within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. It is further ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. 25. It is further ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Opposite parties shall comply order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. Other reliefs sought by complainant are declined in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice. Retail invoice bill dated 02.03.2017 Annexure-A issued by V.J. Enterprises for sale of photocopier machine in question shall form part and parcel of order. 26. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified Copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. 26. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified Copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Functioning of State Commission remained non-operative during winter vacation w.e.f. 11.01.2020 to 23.02.2020 and functioning of State Commission also remained non-operative w.e.f. 24.03.2020 to 15.04.2020 due to Nationwide lock down on account of Corona virus. Hence present appeal is disposed of today. F.A. No. 284/2018 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.