BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/05/2011

Date of Order : 31/07/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 257/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

On 18-02-2009, the complainant purchased an 'Olympus' Camera from a duty free shop at Dubai by paying an amount of Rs. 75,000/-. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer-cum-authorised service centre of the camera. After a few months of purchase, the camera became defunct. On 03-02-2010, the complainant registered a complaint in the official website of the 1^st opposite party. According to the instructions in reply, the complainant entrusted the camera with the 1^st opposite party for repairs. After a few days, the 1^st opposite party intimated the complainant that they have refused the warranty, since there is sand particles inside the camera. In spite of lapse of more than a year, the camera is not repaired or replaced. Thus, the complainant preferred the complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the camera or to refund its price together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- together with costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

The 1^st opposite party is only an authorised service centre of the manufacture company. The complainant was refused the warranty on the ground of detection of sand particles and corrosion in the camera. As per Clause 3 of the warranty, the warranty is not extended to defects caused by sand. The 1^st opposite party is not liable for any manufacturing defects, as it is only a service centre and not a branch office of the manufacturer. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed against the 1^st opposite party.

3. In spite of service of notice of this complaint, the additional 2^nd 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. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled either to get replacement of the camera or to get its price refunded?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly on 18-02-2009, the complainant purchased a camera bearing Model No. 10-20/2.8-4 from Dubai which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. During the warranty period, the complainant entrusted the camera with the 1^st opposite party for its repairs on 27-02-2010. According to the 1^st opposite party, the warranty was refused to the complainant on the ground of detection of sand particles and corrosion in the camera. We are not to entertain the above contention of the 1^st opposite party especially, since in Ext. A5 the description of the camera published by the 2^nd opposite party goes to show that their cameras are splash and dust proof, which has an impossibility has became a possibility in the instant case against the grain of the repute if a company such as 'Olympus' in this case, the 2^nd opposite party. Even if the 1^st opposite party found sand and water particles in the camera of the complainant during its service, it is only due to its manufacturing defect. So, the contention of the 1^st opposite party that the camera is out of warranty condition is untenable in law. In view of the above, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to replace the camera with a new one according to the choice of the complainant.

6. Point No. ii. :- The complainant having been dragged into unnecessary litigation that too on an untenable ground has resulted in unnecessary expense of time and money which calls for compensatory allowances. We fix the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- and costs at Rs. 1,000/-.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The 2^nd opposite party shall replace the camera in question with a new one according to the choice of the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the defective camera simultaneously. The 2^nd opposite party is at liberty to levy excess price, if any from the complainant for the new camera. But if the complainant opts to purchase one of a lesser amount the difference in price shall be refunded to the complainant.

2. The 2^nd opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings respectively.

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 31^st day of July 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========