BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 25/02/2010
Date of Order : 31/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 95/2010
Between
P.K. Kishore, | :: | Complainant |
Pattathilparambil, Kacherippady, 20/912, Palluruthy, Kochi – 682 006. |
| (By Adv. A.P. Jubyraj, Infant Jesus Building, Opp. High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) |
And
1. Madona Electronics, | :: | Opposite parties |
Sony Authorised Service Centre, 40/7135, F4, AVS Buildings, M.G. Road, Kochi – 682 035. 2. Sony India Private Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Madhura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. |
| (Op.pty 1 absent)
(Op.pty 2 by Adv. Rajesh Thomas, 41/3792, C2, 1st Floor, Carmel Centre, Banerji Road, Kochi - 18) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
On 07-11-2006, the complainant purchased a SONY DSC S 500/CE 32 digital camera from SWISS Time House, Ernakulam at a price of Rs.9,573.33. On 16-10-2009, he entrusted the camera with the 1st opposite party for its repairs. On 02-12-2009, the 1st opposite party expressed their willingness to replace the same with another old camera. The complainant demanded a fresh one, since there was warranty till 07-11-2009. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to repair the camera or replace the same with a new one together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. Version of the 2nd opposite party :
The camera did not have any manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint. The first complaint was made on 16-10-2009 which is after 3 years from its purchase. The complainant was offered a resap camera in replacement of the camera in question as the same was three years old. The complainant refused to accept the resap camera and threatened the 2nd opposite party with dire consequences. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.
3. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the 1st opposite party did not respond to the same for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The witness for the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the camera or to get it repaired?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite parties?
5. Point No. i. :- The following issues are not disputed by the parties:
On 07-11-2006, the complainant purchased a Sony DSC S 500/CE 32 camera from SWISS Time House, Ernakulam which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party.
3 year service warranty was provided by the 2nd opposite party.
On 16-10-2009, the complainant entrusted the camera with the 1st opposite party for its repairs, evident from Ext. A2.
The 1st opposite party offered a resap camera instead of the defective camera.
The complainant was not ready to accept the resap camera.
6. The offer of resap camera by the 2nd opposite party itself goes to show the goodwill on their part to sustain the belief of a genuine consumer. This Forum appreciates that. The complainant has used the camera for more than 3 years it having developed only thereafter.
7. Be that it so, we find it only in the balance of justice to direct the 2nd opposite party to replace the defective camera with a new one of the same price with fresh warranty provided the complainant pays 50% of the price of the same. In that event, the 2nd opposite party is at liberty to retain the camera under dispute. Since the primary grievance of the complainant has been met squarely, no order for compensation is called for.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2011.
