STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

The General Manager/H.R. Manager/Director, Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Business Park, 7^th  Floor, Block 1, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon (Haryana)

.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1. Ajay Garg, son of Sh.Malvinder Garg, Resident of House No.605, First Floor, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh. (Complainant/respondent no.1)
2. The Manager, E.sys Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.326, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh (Service Dispensed with vide order dated 10.09.2012) (Opposite Party No.1/respondent no.2).      
3. The Manager, M/s Grand Stores, L.L.C., P.O. Box-2144, Sharjah- United Arab Emirates. (Service Dispensed with vide order dated 10.09.2012) (Opposite Party No.3/respondent no.3). 

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the appellant.    

                   Sh. Gurpreet Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                   Service of respondents no.2 and 3, dispensed with, vide                       order dated 10.09.2012.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant), as under:-

“As a result of the above, we are of the opinion that the compliant must succeed qua OP No.2 (Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd.).  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP No.2 is  directed to replace the Camera in question with new one of the same Model & Configuration or to refund the cost of the Camera i.e. 799 AED in Indian currency.  OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. 

This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within a period of 30 days, failing which it shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount along penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 01.11.2011 till its actual payment to the complainant, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid”.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, purchased one Fujifilm’s Digital Camera, Model No.S8000 FD, from Opposite Party No.3, on 20.8.2010, vide cash memo, Annexure C-1, having international warranty for one year, vide Annexure C-2. The said camera stopped functioning, just after 9 months of its purchase. The complainant, then took the same, to Opposite Party No.1-Service Centre of the Company for repairs. The Manager of Opposite Party No.1, told the complainant that the camera shall be sent to the Head Office i.e. Opposite Party No.2, for repairs. The complainant was also told that when the camera after repairs was received, he will be informed. Opposite Party No.1, returned the camera, after 10 days, vide camera delivery card Annexure C-3, with the remarks that the same was old model of 2008 and they did not have Global warranty support for the same.  Ultimately, a legal notice (Annexure C-4) was sent to the Opposite Parties for replacement of the Camera or refund of the cost thereof, as the same suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to replace the defective digital camera, with a new one or refund the price thereof, i.e. Rs.9600/- (approx.), alongwith interest @18% P.A., w.e.f. 20.08.2010, till realization; pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant; and pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000.

3.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that, at the relevant time, it was only the Service Provider of M/s Fujifilm India Private Limited/Opposite Party No.2, and, as per its record, the camera, in question, was an old Model of 2008. It was further stated that it had no warranty support from M/s Fujifilm India Private Limited, and, as such, the question of any deficiency, in rendering service, on its part, did not at all arise. It was further stated that it could only entertain/repair those cameras, under the terms of warranty, which were approved by M/s Fujifilm India Private Limited, and without the approval from Opposite Party No.2, it had no authority to repair the same. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that it was neither the manufacturer, nor the actual seller of the camera, in question. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased the camera, from a shop at Dubai, which was a separate entity, not connected with Opposite Party No.2. It was admitted that the complainant contacted it, for repair of the camera, in question, but the warranty documents of the same were not valid.  It was further stated that, moreso, the camera had not been sold in India. It was further stated that, as such, neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             The Counsel for the complainant, made a statement, before the District Forum, on 21.12.2011, to the effect, that the name of Opposite Party No.3, be deleted from the array of the parties. Accordingly, vide order dated 21.12.2011, the name of Opposite Party No.3, was deleted, from the array of the parties.  

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and respondent no.1, as the service of respondents no.2 and 3, was dispensed with, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant purchased Fujifilm Digital Camera, Model No.S8000 FD, from the shop of Opposite Party No.3, at Dubai, as is evident, from Annexure C-1.  He further submitted that the camera, in question, was not purchased by the complainant, from India. He further submitted that the manufacturer of the camera, in question, which was purchased by the complainant, from Dubai, did not have any Technical Support and Repair Service Centre, located in India. He further submitted that, as per the Owner`s Manual, referred to above, Technical Support and Repair Service Centres of the Company, of which, the camera was purchased by the complainant, from Dubai, are located, in the Countries, other than India. He further submitted that, it was only as a good-will gesture, that on the asking of the appellant that Opposite Party No.1, the authorized Service Centre of the Fujifilm India Private Limited, accepted the camera for repair, on 04.07.2011 and returned the same, on 15.07.2011, with the comments, that the camera was old model of 2008, and it did not have Global warranty support of this model. He further submitted that the international warranty, which was provided to the complainant, at the time of purchase of the camera from Dubai, did not provide that the manufacturer of the same was  having its Technical Support and Repair Service Centre, anywhere in India. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the manufacturer Company of the camera, had no concern, whatsoever, with the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 being a different entity. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, to the contrary. He further submitted that there was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

11.           On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1, submitted that an email dated 27.12.2011 was received by the complainant, from one S. P. Singh, of the Fujifilm India Private Limited, wherein, it had been mentioned that for the Fujifilm customers, it (Fujifilm India), had decided to support it, as a very special case, and will rectify the defects, in the camera, at the earliest. He further submitted that, no doubt, the camera was purchased from Dubai, yet, in view of the international warranty given to the complainant, he could get it repaired, if it became defective, during the warranty period, from any of the Technical Support and Repair Service Centers, located in India. He further submitted that the mere fact that the defective camera was accepted for repairs, by Opposite Party No.1, in itself, was sufficient to prove that it was the authorized Technical Support and Repair Service Centre of the Company, which manufactured it. . He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, right, in coming to the conclusion, that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite party No.2, as also it indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased Fujifilm Digital Camera, manufactured by Fujifilm Corporation, 7-3, Akasaka 9-Chome Minato-KU, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan, as is evident from the Owner`s Manual, from a shop at Dubai. It means that he did not purchase the said camera, from any shop in India. He was given international warranty, Annexure C-2, at the time of purchase of the camera. In this international warranty card, it was nowhere mentioned that the Technical Support and Repair Service Centres of the said Company were also located in a particular city, in India. On the other hand, it is evident, from copy of the Owner’s Manual, placed at pages 68 to 79 of the District Forum file that the Company of which, the camera was purchased by the complainant, was having Technical Support and Repair Service Centres, in various Countries, other than India. Since, the Company of which the camera was purchased by the complainant, was not having  any Technical Support and Repair Service Centre, at any location in India, Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant) could not be said to have any connection, with the said Company. Under these circumstances, it could be said that Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant), is completely a different entity. Under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.2(now appellant) had no legal obligation to repair the camera of the complainant, which became defective, during the period of warranty.  Therefore, it could not be said that Opposite Party No.2, was in any way deficient, in rendering service, or adopted unfair trade practice.

13.           No doubt, the complainant, handed over the camera, to  Opposite Party No.1, on 04.07.2011 for the rectification of defects therein.  Annexure C-3 is a copy of the Camera Delivery Card, which was given by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant, at the time of handing over the defective camera, on 15.07.2011. However, the camera was returned to the complainant, by the Manager of Opposite Party No.1, with the following remarks:-

“This camera S8000FD is old model of 2008 & we do not have warranty support for this model of global warranty case. So returning the camera back to customer in faulty condition”

14.           The afore-extracted endorsement made on Annexure C-3, by the Manager of Opposite Party No.1, clearly proved that the camera, in question, was of old model of 2008 and it had no Global warranty support for this model. Under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.1, could not rectify the defect, in the camera. Had the Global warranty support, in respect of the model of the camera, handed over by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.1, been provided to him, and in that event, he had failed to rectify the defect, the matter would have been different. In the absence of any global warranty support, having been extended to Opposite Party No.1, for the repair and rectification of defects, in respect of the old model of 2008 camera, in question, he was not legally obliged, to rectify the defects, therein. Thus, by returning the camera, with the aforesaid endorsement, to the complainant, in our considered opinion, Opposite Party No.1, was not, in any way, deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice.

15.           Now, coming to the next question, as to what is the effect of e-mail dated 27.12.2011, stated to have been sent to the complainant, by an Officer of Opposite Party No.2, it may be stated here that the same is of no avail. No evidence has been produced by the complainant, to prove that the e-mail dated 27.12.2011, was sent by an Officer of Opposite Party No.2. No application was moved by the complainant, to summon the author of the email dated 27.12.2011, to depose with regard to the authenticity thereof. Opposite Party No.2, did not admit the sending of such an email. Since, the genuineness and authenticity of the e-mail dated 27.12.2011, was not proved by the complainant, no reliance thereon could be placed. The email dated 27.12.2011, at page 45/68 of the District Forum file, which was allegedly sent by one S.P. Singh of Fujifilm India Private Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant) to the complainant, reads as under:-

“We like to inform you that international warranty supports are back to back from the country of sell which is implemented after the validation of the warranty documents from the concerned fujifilm company of that country. Since in your case the warranty papers were blank & hence in absence of much clarify for warranty papers we were not able to support for your camera at the time you had approached our service partner. But as discussed today, Fujifilm India as a goodwill gesture for Fujifilm customer has decided to support your case as a very special case & will rectify the camera at the earliest. We will request you to kindly submit the camera at the below location for repair Compuage Infocom Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40D, Chandigarh”.

16.             Even if, for the sake of arguments, the genuineness of e-mail dated 27.12.2011, is assumed, it does not improve the case of the complainant, in any manner. No evidence was produced by the complainant that after the alleged receipt of e-mail dated 27.12.2011, aforesaid, he took the camera for repairs to Compuage Infocom Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40D, Chandigarh. Since the camera was not taken to the aforesaid Centre for repairs, after the alleged receipt of the email dated 27.12.2011, the question of rectification of defect therein, did not all arise. In these circumstances also, it could not be said that Opposite Party No.2, was in any way, deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice.

17.           Even otherwise, the contents of the e-mail dated 27.12.2011, referred to above,  did not go to prove that Opposite Party No.2, had any Global warranty support, in relation to the camera manufactured by Fujifilm Corporation, 7-3, Akasaka 9-Chome Minato-KU, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan, which was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.3, located at Dubai. As per Owner`s Manual, referred to above, the said Manufacturing Company did not have Technical Support/Service   Centre  in   India.  If,    as    a   good- will gesture, as per the contents of e-mail dated 27.12.2011, Opposite Party No.2, decided to support the case of the complainant, and told him to take the camera to Compuage Infocom Ltd., SCO No.237, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, for repairs, to which Centre, he never took the same for rectification of defects, it could not be said that he (Opposite Party No.2), was, in any way, under  legal obligation to address his (complainants) concern. Had Opposite Party No.2, been under legal obligation, to rectify the defects, in the camera of the complainant, and he had not done so, without any plausible reason, it would have been said that he was deficient, in rendering service. In our considered opinion, since Opposite Party No.2, was not having Global warranty support, for the camera, in question, and, as such, under no legal obligation to rectify the defects therein, he was not deficient, in rendering service.  The District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse are reversed.

18.           The camera, as stated above, was purchased from a shop at Dubai. The Manager of M/s. Grand Stores, L.L.C. P.O Box-2144, Sharjah- United Arab Emirates, was arrayed as Opposite Party No.3, in the complaint. However, vide statement dated 21.12.2011, made by the Counsel for the complainant, the name of Opposite Party No.3, was deleted. It means, that no relief was claimed against Opposite Party No.3, from whom, the camera was purchased by the complainant. In case, any defect occurred, in the camera, the complainant could either approach Opposite Party No.3, or the manufacturing Company of the camera, or its Technical Support/Service Centre, located in any of the Countries, as mentioned in the Owner’s Manual, aforesaid. However, instead of doing so, the complainant, filed the complaint, against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, which had no concern or connection with the manufacturing Company of the camera, in question. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are neither the Technical Support/ Service Centres, nor the dealers of the manufacturer, nor have Global warranty support of the camera, in question.  The District Forum, thus, fell in a grave error in fastening the liability on Opposite Party No.2.

19.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

20.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

21.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.

22.           This order shall, however, not debar the complainant, to resort to any other legal remedy which may be available to him, against an appropriate party, for the settlement of his grievance.  

23.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

24.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

October 9, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg