Date of filing:10.9.2013
Date of Disposal:2.4.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
C.C.No.152 OF 2013.
Between :
K.V.Ramana Rao, S/o K.Subba Rao, Prop. Of Chinni Studio, R/o Door No.23-3-58, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari – 534 002.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Model Photographic Co. (P) Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Person, #27-23-172, Beside Big Bazaar, Gopal Reddy Road, Near Navarang Theatre, Vijayawada – 2.
2. Nikon India Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Person, Plot No.17, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon – 122 002.
3. Nikon Customer Service, Bhanu Electronics, Rep., by its Authorized Person, Door No.27-14-52, Shop No.14, Mahalaxmi Towers, Rajagopalachari Street, Near Buckinghumpet Post Office, Vijayawada.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 20.3.2014 in the presence of Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri A.Balaji, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Sri K.S.Sudhakar Raju, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief averments of the complaint is in brief:
1. The complainant purchased Nikon Camera Lens from the 1st opposite party on 18.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.98,000/-. After its purchase while taking photos the said lens are over-exposed. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party advised him to approach the 3rd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and handed over the lens to him for rectification on 27.2.2013. The 3rd opposite party issued job sheet and returned lens stating that they rectified the defect. But the lens are again not working and the complainant handed over the lens to 3rd opposite party on 15.5.2013. The 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect. Therefore the complainant demanded the 1st opposite party to give new lens instead of defective lens. But they are unable to do so. There is manufacturing defect in the lens and within the warranty period it is not working properly. The 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect under the above said circumstances the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective lens with new one and to pay compensation. The opposite parties received the said notice and issued reply with all false allegations. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.98,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of Nikon Camera lens; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards business loss, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and to pay costs.
2. Notices were issued from the Forum to opposite parties 1 to 3 and the 3rd opposite party remained absent. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their versions.
The version the 1st opposite parties is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant after satisfying himself regarding the description of functions and sale price has purchased lens AF-S-70/2.8G.ED Serial Number 730610 from this 1st opposite party. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 21.7.2013 with all false allegations and on receipt of the same the 1st opposite party got a reply notice dated 26.7.2013 interalia there is no way concerned with the manufacturing defect. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer and no way concerned with regard to the alleged manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in selling the subject lens. Hence this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is in brief:
The 2nd opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant has deposited the lens with the 3rd opposite party with a complaint “image not clear”. Then the lens were sent to head office at Gurgaon and after inspection the service team did all necessary repairs and the same were returned to the complainant on 4.3.2013 with a remark “optical axis adjustment done, lens made OK” and again he deposited the same on 15.5.2013 with the complaint “in 70 mm photos are burning” and again the service team replace the 5th element did optical axis lens has made OK with free of cost under warranty policy at both occasions and they delivered the same to the complainant in a perfect condition on 25.5.2013. But the complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 21.7.2013 with all false, frivolous, Vexatious and baseless allegations for which this opposite party has issued a reply notice dated 30.7.2013. After issuance of legal notice by the complainant this opposite party asked the complainant through SMS and phone calls to deposit lens for inspection for which he refused to do so and he filed this complaint with all false allegations though this opposite party is ready to rectify the real defect at free of cost as per the warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party with regard to camera lens. Hence this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of the 1st opposite party Sri Thirumalaraju Ravindranath, Director gave his affidavit and on behalf of 2nd opposite party Sri Jogi Francis, DGM, Service and Customer Relations gave his affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rectifying the defect of the camera lens or refund the cost of the lens to the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
7. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased the camera lens from the 1st opposite party on 18.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.98,000/- with one year warranty under Ex.A.1 invoice and Ex.A.2 service warranty. When the lens was not working properly he handed over the same to the 3rd opposite party for rectification of the defect on 27.2.2013 under Ex.A.3 job sheet. The 3rd opposite party returned the lens to the complainant saying that defect was rectified. But the lens was again not working and the complainant handed over the same to the 3rd opposite party on 15.5.2013 under Ex.A.4 job sheet. The 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect. Therefore the complainant demanded the 1st opposite party to give new lens instead of defective lens but they did not do so. As there is manufacturing defect the lens within warranty period is not working properly and the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect. The complainant got issued a demand legal notice to opposite parties under Ex.A.5 dated 21.7.2013 to rectify the defect in camera lens or to give new Nikon camera lens within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. If they failed to do so he would proceed to the court of law. The opposite parties received the said notice under Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7. opposite parties 1 and 2 issued reply notices under Ex.A.9 dated 26.7.2013 and under Ex.A.8 dated 30.7.2013 respectively denying the allegations of the complainant. In view of the above facts we the Forum came to conclusion to give directions to opposite parties to refund the cost of the camera lens i.e., Rs.98,000/- rather than to give direction to rectify the camera lens as the camera lens are got defective within a short period of purchasing. If we give order to rectify the defect or to replace the same with new one the same problem will arise and the complainant has to approach the Forum again and again. As the opposite parties neither rectified the problem nor replaced the same with new camera lens, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay the cost of the lens. The complainant is entitled for the same. Accordingly these points are answered.
8. The 2nd opposite party relied on Judgement given in
(1) 2013(4) CPR 453(NC) Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd., Vs. M/s Alpine International & Ors. In this case the complainant is a company in business of running hospitals and providing world class medical facilities of highest standards to patients for consideration. Atrium is also part of hospital building. Atrium of hospital has direct correlation with running of business. Technistone was purchased by Complainant Company and services for renovation of atrium and relaying of technistone were hired for commercial purpose. The facts and circumstances in this complaint are different to the present facts of this complaint.
(2) 2013(2) CPR 448 (NC) Suresh Baban Gadekar Vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. In the case the complainant purchased a tractor under loan agreement with the opposite parties and executed hypothecation agreement and other loan documents in favour of the opposite parties. But he failed to pay EMI regularly and was defaulted in payment of the instalments. The dispute between the parties is relating to payment of due instalments. It may be true the complainant purchased the tractor for commercial purpose. The facts in this care are different to the facts of present complaint. In the present case the complainant purchased the camera lens for his studio purpose. But not hiring purpose. The small photo studio will be maintained only for earning his livelihood even though it was not mentioned in the complaint, the mistake done by the counsel of the complainant by omitting “for his livelihood”:. The complainant not be made to suffer.
Therefore the citations filed by the 2nd opposite party not helpful to the 2nd opposite party.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, The complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the camera lens i.e., Rs.98,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Complaint against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 K.V.Ramana Rao D.W.1 T.Ravindranath,
Complainant Director of the
(by affidavit) 1st opposite party
(by affidavit)
D.W.2 Jogi Francis,DGM, Service and Customer Relations, 2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 18.02.2013 Invoice Cash/Credit issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.2 18.02.2013 Service Warranty.
Ex.A.3 27.02.2013 Photocopy of job card issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A.4 15.05.2013 Photocopy of job card issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A.5 21.07.2013 Office copy of the legal notice along with 3 postal receipts.
Ex.A.6 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.8 . . Reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.9 . . Reply notice issued by the 1st opposite party.
For the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
