SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant purchased a Canon 80D DSLR Camera from Canon Image Square on 23.01.2017 at a consideration of Rs.69,500/-. The warranty period of the subject camera is two years from the date of its purchase. The subject camera was repaired within the warranty period and handed over to the complainant on 14.06.2017. That on 10.10.2017 the camera again found dead condition and on 23.10.2017 the complainant lodged service request. On physical inspection of the camera the technician noticed “No water logging or rust, fungus” within it and on the following day complainant received a call from CMSC and informed that subject camera is water logged and its repair cost is Rs.51,000/- . That on 07.11.2017 complainant received a revised estimated cost of Rs. 27,227/- for repair of the camera from OP.  Complainant immediately vide e-mail and letter protested regarding the estimated cost and also asked the reason of damage. Subject camera was returned to the complainant without repair. Ultimately the OP vide letter dated 30.11.2017 informed that they are unable to provide any warranty service. Finding no other alternative, complainant issued legal notice dated 15.01.2017 requested the OP to replace the camera. The OP replied the legal notice through their solicitor and also turned down the demand of the complainant. Therefore, such act on the part of the OP tantamount to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence. Hence,  the complaint.

            The OP has contested the case by filing Written Version admitting the fact that the complainant purchased the subject camera on 23.01.2017 and the camera was repaired  free of cost and handed over to the complainant on 14.06.2017 against proper acknowledgement. That again on 23.10.2017 the complainant deposited the camera to the Service Centre of the OP and reported that camera is dead condition. On doing physical inspection of the camera, concerned technician apparently noticed some rust on the camera, on the following day camera was opened and  found  that it  got rusted inside due to exposure to water, immediately complainant was called and informed that it cannot be repaired under warranty. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to seek repair on free of cost under warranty. The OP has denied that they quoted Rs.51,000/- towards repair cost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as they never refused to undertake service and repair the camera. On the contrary, the Complainant did not choose to repair the camera against payment of repairing charge. The subject camera was damaged due to complainant’s own act, mishandling and negligence. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Decision with Reasons

            Both  parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed Brief Notes of Argument.

            It remains undisputed that the subject camera was purchased by the complainant on 23.01.2017 and its warranty period is two years from the date of its purchase. It is also undisputed that subject camera was repaired within four months from its purchase free of cost. It is also true that the subject camera was returned to the complainant on 14.06.2017 with the observation of the Engineer that “ Symptom: “ operation failure, “Cause:“ component failure, “Remedy:”, Replace parts,  electrical adjustment and mechanical adjustment (vide Annexure – D of the complaint petition). There is also no dispute that again on 23.10.2017 complainant lodged service requests and on physical inspection of the camera the technician noticed no water logging, battery leakage, non standard accessories / parts used, mishandling/ tampering of the product but noticed rust / fungus / sand (vide annexure- F) and the complainant acknowledged service report dated 23.10.2017. The subject camera was opened on 24.10.2017 and found that it was rushed inside due to exposure to water. Immediately, complainant was called and informed that camera cannot be repaired under warranty. It is true that the OP estimated cost of Rs.27,227/- for repair of the camera (vide annexure-G) and camera was returned to the complainant without  repair as the complainant did not choose to  repair the camera on payment of Rs.27,227/-.

            The dispute cropped up when the OP informed the complainant that camera cannot be repaired under warranty and he should bear repairing cost.

            On perusal of Annexure- 4 of the written version we find warranty clause. We reproduce the warranty clause hereunder:

            “Warranty is provided only on product(s) which are purchased from CIPL Authorized Dealer / Reseller / Authorized on line Resellers.

            The warranty is limited only to the manufacturing/ workmanship defects in the product(s). The warranty does not cover the replacement of the product(s) Warranty does not cover warranty of functionality of the product(s).  Warranty does not cover damage caused due to act of god & force majeure events including but not limited to fire or water damage, electrical disturbances etc. Within warranty period, MSC will repair or replace any defective part(s) of the product(s), if required, to rectify the problem in the product(s). CIPL reserves the right to use re-engineered part(s) with performance parameter equivalent to the similar new part(s), for performing the warranty services.

The replaced part(s) shall become the property of CIPL. In the event of repairs or replacement of any part(s), during the warranty period, the warranty of the product shall thereafter continue only for the unexpired period of original warranty”.

            As per warranty terms & conditions the warranty of the subject camera shall become void due to exposure to water. Thus, neither the OP nor the complainant can go beyond the said terms & conditions of the warranty. The OP never refused to undertake service and repair of the camera but the complainant himself did not choose to undertake the repair of the camera on chargeable basis. The complainant being a professional photographer should have exercised proper care and would also be aware of the consequences that may follow if the camera is exposed to the water.

            Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with evidence and documents on record, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

In the result, the case merit fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest  against the OP. There is no order as to cost.