In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.213/2009
1) Mr. Kalidas Ojha,
2B, Satyan Apartment,
357/1/16, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-68. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) CMS Computer Ltd.,
KankariaMansion, 4th Floor,
7 Kyd Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16.
2) Mr. Amar Nath Chatterjee,
National Sales Manager, CMS Computer Ltd.
(CMS NVL Division), KankariaMansion, 4th Floor,
7 Kyd Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 33 Dated 28-05-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the sole proprietor of the M/s Kalidas Ojha and Associates having its office at the aforesaid address stated in the cause title, who provides camera on hire basis for self employment to various leading T.V. Serial Makers, including Mr. Ravi Ojha, a renowned T.V. Serial producer for which an agreement to provide a camera on hire was agreed upon between the complainant and said Ravi Ojha for T.V. Serials namely for Zee Bangla of Zee network and for Star Jalsa, under the Star Group of Channels.
Complainant on 10th January received a High Sea Sales offer with as reference number being CMS-NVL/CAL/KOA/3244 from the Sr. Executive of Sales, Mr. Saroj Ranjan Behera of CMS Computers Ltd. (CMS NVL Division) and the said offer letter reflected total break up of the purchase cost of the said camera with all its accessories including cost of custom duty which stood at Rs.6,43,074/- and out of the said amount of Rs.1,70,226/- was charged towards customs duty.
Complainant placed an order for a camera being Model nmo.3 CCD Camcorder with Uns DRS 400 PK and its lens and accessories on 19.2.08 and paid the whole cost in advance which amounts to Rs.6,43,074/- as per the offer letter and quotation through a cheque, bearing no.677057 dt.13.2.08 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan at Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch, Kolkata. The said entire amount was taken as loan by the complainant from M/s Udita Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.,Kolkata.
At the time of accepting the cost of the camera the complainant was assured by o.ps. that the camera and its accessories would be delivered within 15.3.08 but not later than 31.3.08.
Complainant’s several communications of request remained unanswered and neither delivery of camera nor refund of the customs duty was made even after 8 weeks as promised from the date of placing the order.
Complainant finding no alternative on 10.4.08 sent a letter of cancellation of the said order and asked for refund of the entire amount of Rs.6,43,074/- which the complainant had already paid in advance at the time of placing the order towards the price of the camera including the customs duty and charges.
On 12.4.08 complainant was refunded the customs duty through a cheque bearing no.348656 dt.4.4.08 which should have been refunded to him in Feb. 2008 itself thereby with holding the money for approximately 5 weeks.
On 23.4.l08 camera landed in Kolkata and the complainant took initiative on his own to collect the camera and its accessories by paying customs duty through a different agency.
Thereafter complainant as per agreement sent the camera to M/s Ravi Ojha whereby said Ravi Ojha’s Senior Cinematographer, Mr. Rakesh Kumar used the camera for only 5 days but stopped shooting as he faced problems of serious kind as pictures contained grains in out put and poor colour tone.
Subsequently the said camera was taken back by CMS Computers Ltd. Kolkata from the complainant with a noting that with minor adjustment the camera would work perfectly but within 5 days the o.ps. returned the camera with same defects.
After around 10 to 15 days the camera was returned to the complainant by Mr. Abhijit on of the o.ps’ technical-in-charge who stated that the defects had been rectified but unfortunately similar faults continued.
Finding no alternative on 11.8.08 the complainant sent a notice to Mr. Amar Nath Chatterjee, National Sales Manager along with the certificate as collected from the Cameraman and the Editor of Mr. Ravi Ojha with a request that their representative should visit complainant’s office to see the result. Accordingly, their representative visited and once again agreed that the faults were not removed. O.ps. asked the complainant to deliver the cameras to their office for further check.
The camera was returned once again to the o.ps. but it was delivered back to the complainant with same defects which gives rise to the assumption that the camera suffers problems which are irreparable.
On 1.8.08 the complainant served a notice to o.ps. asking them to take back the camera and its all accessories and also refund the entire cost along with the losses as has been suffered by the complainant for the conduct of the o.ps.
After receiving the notice dt.1.8.08 o.ps. sent as reply asking the complainant to return the camera for testing the said camera in their Delhi office. On 12.8.08 o.ps. took back the camera.
Complainant has informed Sony India (P) Ltd., Kolkata and Delhi and also Sony Corporation, Hon Kong about all the developments but had no reply from their end.
On 30.8.08 o.ps’ representative visited the complainant’s office with same remark that Sony Service Centre, Delhi had tested the camera but has not found any fault in it whereby complainant requested o.ps’ representative to provide the output of the test conducted by their Delhi Centre which they did not provide till date.
On 5.9.08 the said camera was sent back to the complainant through a consignment without providing details of the test out put and thereby complainant refused to take back. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is the sole proprietor of the M/s Kalidas Ojha and Associates having its office at the aforesaid address stated in the cause title, who provides camera on hire basis for self employment to various leading T.V. Serial Makers, including Mr. Ravi Ojha, a renowned T.V. Serial producer for which an agreement to provide a camera on hire was agreed upon between the complainant and said Ravi Ojha for T.V. Serials namely for Zee Bangla of Zee network and for Star Jalsa, under the Star Group of Channels.
We find that complainant placed an order for a camera being Model nmo.3 CCD Camcorder with Uns DRS 400 PK and its lens and accessories on 19.2.08 and paid the whole cost in advance which amounts to Rs.6,43,074/- as per the offer letter and quotation through a cheque, bearing no.677057 dt.13.2.08 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan at Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch, Kolkata. The said entire amount was taken as loan by the complainant from M/s Udita Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.,Kolkata.
It is seen from the record that complainant on 10th January received a High Sea Sales offer with as reference number being CMS-NVL/CAL/KOA/3244 from the Sr. Executive of Sales, Mr. Saroj Ranjan Behera of CMS Computers Ltd. (CMS NVL Division) and the said offer letter reflected total break up of the purchase cost of the said camera with all its accessories including cost of custom duty which stood at Rs.6,43,074/- and out of the said amount of Rs.1,70,226/- was charged towards customs duty.
It transpires from the record that at the time of accepting the cost of the camera the complainant was assured by o.ps. that the camera and its accessories would be delivered within 15.3.08 but not later than 31.3.08. Complainant’s several communications of request remained unanswered and neither delivery of camera nor refund of the customs duty was made even after 8 weeks as promised from the date of placing the order.
We further find that complainant finding no alternative on 10.4.08 sent a letter of cancellation of the said order and asked for refund of the entire amount of Rs.6,43,074/- which the complainant had already paid in advance at the time of placing the order towards the price of the camera including the customs duty and charges. On 12.4.08 complainant was refunded the customs duty through a cheque bearing no.348656 dt.4.4.08 which should have been refunded to him in Feb. 2008 itself thereby with holding the money for approximately 5 weeks.
And on 23.4.08 camera landed in Kolkata and the complainant took initiative on his own to collect the camera and its accessories by paying customs duty through a different agency.
Thereafter complainant as per agreement sent the camera to M/s Ravi Ojha whereby said Ravi Ojha’s Senior Cinematographer, Mr. Rakesh Kumar used the camera for only 5 days but stopped shooting as he faced problems of serious kind as pictures contained grains in out put and poor colour tone.
Subsequently the said camera was taken back by CMS Computers Ltd. Kolkata from the complainant with a noting that with minor adjustment the camera would work perfectly but within 5 days the o.ps. returned the camera with same defects. After around 10 to 15 days the camera was returned to the complainant by Mr. Abhijit on of the o.ps’ technical-in-charge who stated that the defects had been rectified but unfortunately similar faults continued.
Finding no alternative on 11.8.08 the complainant sent a notice to Mr. Amar Nath Chatterjee, National Sales Manager along with the certificate as collected from the Cameraman and the Editor of Mr. Ravi Ojha with a request that their representative should visit complainant’s office to see the result. Accordingly, their representative visited and once again agreed that the faults were not removed. O.ps. asked the complainant to deliver the cameras to their office for further check.
It is seen from the record that the camera was returned once again to the o.ps. but it was delivered back to the complainant with same defects which gives rise to the assumption that the camera suffers problems which are irreparable. On 1.8.08 the complainant served a notice to o.ps. asking them to take back the camera and its all accessories and also refund the entire cost along with the losses as has been suffered by the complainant for the conduct of the o.ps. After receiving the notice dt.1.8.08 o.ps. sent as reply asking the complainant to return the camera for testing the said camera in their Delhi office. On 12.8.08 o.ps. took back the camera.
We find that complainant has informed Sony India (P) Ltd., Kolkata and Delhi and also Sony Corporation, Hon Kong about all the developments but had no reply from their end. And on 30.8.08 o.ps’ representative visited the complainant’s office with same remark that Sony Service Centre, Delhi had tested the camera but has not found any fault in it whereby complainant requested o.ps’ representative to provide the output of the test conducted by their Delhi Centre which they did not provide till date. On 5.9.08 the said camera was sent back to the complainant through a consignment without providing details of the test out put and thereby complainant refused to take back.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund Rs.4,72,848/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy two thousand eight hundred forty eight) only towards the purchase amount of the camera and its accessories and are further directed to refund charges of Rs.1,55,335/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand three hundred thirty five) only towards customs duty paid by complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
