Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 16.10.2015
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to remove the defect of the Camera if not, replace it or pay the price of the Camera i.e. Rs. 6,400/- ( Rs. Six Thousand Four Hundred only ).
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
- The petitioner deal with a shop of Photo studio in Bhagwanpur, Buxar and he purchased a Fuji film A850 Digital Camera bearing serial no. 8UL59783 on 23.10.2008 from opposite party no. 1 i.e. Baba Computer Solution at the price of Rs. 6,400/- ( Rs. Six Thousand Four Hundred only ).
- It has been further asserted that the opposite party no. 1 issued cash memo and warranty card with the camera, after purchasing the camera petitioner returned to his house and make photography, then he found that the camera is not functioning properly and has not issued clear picture. Then the petitioner called on the mobile of the opposite party no. 1 on 24.10.2008 the very next day of purchase of the said camera and stated to him about the complaints of camera and declares that the camera was not functioning properly and not giving clear picture.
- It is also asserted that the opposite party no. 1 has made an assurance that all the defects of camera shall be removed and said to the petitioner that you come at the shop with the camera and deposit to me and after removal of the defect it shall be returned to you. On demand of the opposite party no. 1 the petitioner went to the shop of the opposite party no. 1 and deposited the camera to opposite party no. 1. Who has given an assurance that “Please come after 15 days” it shall be returned after repairing. After 15 days then petitioner met to the opposite party no. 1 he said that the said camera has been sent to the service center i.e. to the shop of opposite party no. 2 and it has not been returned up till now please come again after 15 days. Then again after 15 days complainant went to the opposite party no. 1 and asked for his camera. The opposite party no. 1 said that the camera has not been repaired and its defects cannot be removed and after this he returned the camera. The petitioner requested to the opposite party no. 1 if its defects cannot be removed please replace it because it is under warranty period or return the price of the camera which was charged by opposite party no. 1. Thereafter the petitioner has concern with the sales representative opposite party no. 3 along with his father and state about the complains of said camera, illegal trade practice of opposite party no. 1 but he has taken no response. On 25.02.2009 lastly consulted with the opposite party no. 1 and requested for either replacement of said camera or return the price charged but he refused the same. Thereafter the petitioner gave a legal notice to the opposite party.
- The Opposite Party no. 2 in his written statement has submitted as follows :-
It is submitted that the complainant himself chosen to purchase A850 model camera of Fuji Film which is the most basic entry level camera and which has its own limitation and that it cannot be used for the professional purpose. It is also further submitted that the performance of the said camera cannot be compared with that of the professional camera.
The said camera was working properly as per the specification and features and that the result/ performance/outcomes were same as other A850 model camera.
- The Opposite Party no. 4 in his written statement has submitted as follows :-
The opposite party no. 4 is a subsidiary of opposite party no. 5 based at Japan and opposite party no. 4 act as authorized distributor in India for product/camera manufactured by the opposite party no. 5. Opposite party no. 4 is also authorized for sale and providing warranty support of the products in India through a chain of authorized service center across India.
The claim of the complainant is categorically an illegal and wrong because in Digital camera the snap/photograph can easily be checked immediately after taking the photograph as the whole picture clearly comes in the back LCD of the camera. So there is no question that the complainant after purchasing the camera went to his house and when he took photograph, the camera didn’t give clear picture.
The facts of this case asserted by the parties have been mentioned briefly :
The main grievance of the complainant is that after purchase, it was detected that the camera was defective as the same is not receiving clear picture. The opposite party no. 2 in Para – 3 of his written statement has denied that camera was defective. Opposite party no. 2 in Para – 5 of his written statement has stated that opposite party no. 2 received the said camera on 30.12.2008 and sent it to the service center at Delhi for repairing of the alleged defect. It has been further asserted that aforesaid camera was examined at the service center and no defect was found. It has been asserted that the said camera was working fine as per the specification and features and that the result/performances/outcomes were same as other A850 model Camera.
Opposite party no. 4 has also filed written statement. He has denied the allegation of the complainant and in Para – 7 of written statement has stated as follows :
“the said Camera has been duly examined by the service center when it was deposited on 03.12.2008 by the complainant and thereafter on 06.01.2009 the said Camera was returned back to customer as no defect of any kind was found therein. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of the Camera in satisfactory condition and has signed the delivery report dated 06.01.2009. the photocopy of service delivery report is attached for reference as Annexure – 4/1.”
It goes without saying that aforesaid fact asserted by opposite party no. 2 and 4 have not been denied by cogent evidence by filing rejoinder by complainant.
It is needless to say that the opposite party no. 2 and 4 categorically have asserted that the Camera is technically defect free and it is functioning according to its specification, then there was duty of the complainant to meet the aforesaid assertion of the opposite parties by filling rejoinder with cogent documentary evidence which has not been done. Thus the aforesaid fact remains unrebutted and We are bound to accept the assertion of the opposite parties for want of cogent material on the record. On behalf of the complainant a written Argument has been filed with vogue fact which is not sufficient. It is needless to say that with the “reply to complainant on behalf of opposite party no. 2 ( written statement )” a document has been annexed as annexure – 2 in which there is a endorsement by the complainant that the complainant has received the camera with satisfaction on 06.01.2009. There is no document to show that Annexure – 2 annexed with written statement of the opposite party no. 2 is not genuine.
Thus we find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such the complaint petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
Member President
