IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
Case no. CC/116/2016
Date of filing: 12-08-2016 Date of disposal: 14-09-2017
Complainant:
Sri Amit Das, C/O, Sri Pradip Das,
Village + PO + PS - Hariharpara, District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742166,
West Bengal.
VS.
Opposite Parties:-
- The Manager, Great Eastern Trading Company, ‘Çity Tower’’, 24/G/1,
K. N. Road, PO – Berhampore, District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742101, West Bengal.
- Manager, Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Branch office, PS Plus building, 1st floor, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020.
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, - President
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty - Member
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee – Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C P Act’1986, praying for repair / replacement / refund of money, incurred, towards payment of consideration of Çoolpix P – 530, camera, purchased by the complainant.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that, on 23-12-2015, the complainant, purchased a Coolpix P – 530 camera, manufactured by Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., from OP – 1, after paying consideration of the camera, the comprehensive warranty of the product, being 2 years.
After few months, while trying to open the camera, the complainant found, that the camera is not opening and a ‘Lens error’, message, being exhibited, in the camera, in question. Soon he informed OP – 1, about the problem. Subsequently, he was advised by OP – 1, that presence of dust was there, in the camera and he was further advised to hand over the camera to Nikon Service Centre, as the camera, was within the warranty period.
The complainant, handed over his camera to Nikon Service Centre at Maldah, on 22-06-2016, alongwith relevant papers. After few days, the Service Centre informed him that there had been a dent in the lens of his camera and an amount of Rs. 10,120/- needs to be paid by the complainant, for the repairing work, although the camera was well within warranty period, against which the complainant protested.
Subsequently, after 2 days, the Service / Collection Centre of OP – 2 at Malda, informed the complainant, over phone, that the repairing, had been done and no charge, would be required to take delivery of the camera. The complainant went to the Service / Collection Centre, at Maldah, to take delivery of the camera and found that nothing had been done, for repairing his camera. The complainant took back his camera on 07-01-2016, from the Collection Centre and returned.
Subsequently, he again informed OP – 2, about his problem and OP – 2 informed again, that an amount of R. 10,120/- would be required for execution of the repairing work and disconnected the phone. The complainant, further alleged that the employees of OP – 2 misbehaved with him, when he tried to contact them, over phone, afterwards. Hence the complaint has been filed before this Forum.
The case of the OP (s), in brief, is that, OP – 2, filed the W/V on 21-03-2017, denying the allegations and averments, made by the complainant. OP – 2 denied, existence of any problem in the camera and prayed for dismissal of the case, as according to OP -2, the case has no merit. Subsequently, the Op – 2 admitted about informing the complainant about the estimated cost of repairing of the camera, in question and further stated that, service was provided to the complainant, to his full satisfaction, as and when, required.
As the OP no. 1 has not appeared, the case was heard, ex-parte, against OP no. 1.
Upon pleadings of both the parties, the following point has been raised, for disposal of the complaint.
Point to be considered
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons
To prove the case, the complainant as well as the OP no. 2, have submitted the copy of the warranty card, cash memo, W/V of OP no. 2, respectively. OP – 1, remained absent, throughout the entire period of the case and hence the case was heard, ex-parte, against them.
It is observed, that the complaint made by the complainant to the OP (s), should have received more importance and necessary repairing work, should have been executed by the OP (s), as the camera inflicted the defect, well within the warranty period.
Hence, Ordered that the Consumer Complaint no. 116/2016, is hereby allowed in part, instructing the OP no. 2, to execute necessary repairs, to the camera of the complainant, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of this order, in default, the OP - no. 2 will have to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- per day’s delay and the amount, so accumulated, shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid account.
Let a copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost to each of the parties, on contest, by hand, under proper acknowledgement / be sent, forthwith, under ordinary post, to the concerned parties, as per rules, for information and necessary action.
