Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/57

Child Line Faridkot - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s V.K Photo Goods - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

04 May 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        57         

Date of Institution :   23.02.2016

Date of Decision :     4.05.2016

Child Line, Faridkot situated at back side Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park, near Thakur Dawara, Faridkot through its duly authorised Incharge Mrs Sonia w/o Rakesh Kumar, r/o Kashmirian Mohalla, Jaurian Chakkian, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                  

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s V K Photo Goods authorized dealer of digital Camera etc situated at Mohalla Talab, Park view Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its proprietor Mr Vinay Kumar.

2. Nikon India Pvt Ltd, Plot No. 17, Sec 32, Institution Area, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana.

 ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present:  Ms Vipin Tayal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               OPs  Exparte.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective camera and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 3.03.2014, complainant purchased a camera COOLPIX L 27 Nikon Sr No. 11011008 for Rs 4,750/-from OP-1, authorized dealer of OP-2 and at the time of purchasing the camera, OP-1 gave warranty for two years in case of any defect and also assured complainant that if defect is curable, then it would be removed and in case of incurable defect, camera would be replaced by him from                                    OP-2. On 8.12.2015, the said camera started giving problem and stopped functioning and it did not get on. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP-1 on 9.12.2015, who admitted defect in said camera and kept the same with him suggesting complainant that he would send the said camera to OP-2 for removing the defect and asked him to visit after 20-25 days. On 26.12.2015, complainant again visited the shop of OP-1, but he told that due to heavy rush he could not send the camera to OP-2 and assured for removing the defect and again asked him to come after 15-20 days. On 18.01.2016, complainant further visited the shop of OP-1, but OP-1 returned the complainant and he was told that employee of OP-1 would go to Ludhiana on 22.01.2016 for removing the defect in camera. On 22.01.2016, complainant again visited the shop of OP-1 and handed over said camera to him, which OP-1 kept with him and assured to get it repaired from authorised service centre of Company at Ludhiana. OP-1 asked him to visit after 4-5 days and after 4-5 days, when complainant went to OP-1 to get his camera, OP-1 returned the camera with rude behaviour stating that said camera would not be repaired until or unless complainant pays Rs.2,500/-for repair and when complainant reminded OP-1 of warranty period, he was told to talk directly about this fact to service centre. Complainant also issued legal notice to him but all in vain. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the defective camera and to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                              Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 29.02.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                       Notice issued to OP-1 was duly served to him through Process Server, but despite repeated calls OP-1 did not come present in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel to contest the case. After waiting for OP-1 till 4.30, OP-1 was proceeded against ex-parte. Notice containing copy of complaint was issued to OP-2 through registered post but same was not received back in the Forum. Statutory period expired. Acknowledgment must have been mis-laid in transit. Case was called up many times, but OP-2 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, vide order dt 5.08.2015, OP was proceeded against exarte.

5                                                            The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the exparte evidence of complainant.

 6                                           We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file.

7                                       In the absence of any rebuttal, ld counsel for complainant argued that on 3.03.2014, complainant purchased a camera COOLPIX L 27 Nikon Sr No. 11011008 for Rs 4,750/-from OP-1,which is the authorized dealer of OP-2 and at the time of purchasing the camera, OP-1 gave warranty for two years against any defect and also assured complainant that if defect is curable, then it would be removed and in case of incurable defect, camera would be replaced by him from OP-2. On 8.12.2015, the said camera  stopped functioning and it did not get on. On 9.12.2015, complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP-1, who admitted defect in said camera and kept the same suggesting complainant that he would send the said camera to OP-2 for removing the defect and asked him to visit after 20-25 days. On 26.12.2015, complainant again visited the shop of OP-1, but OP-1 told that due to heavy rush he could not send the camera to OP-2 and assured for removing the defect and again asked him to come after 15-20 days. On 18.01.2016, complainant further visited the shop of OP-1 and OP-1 returned the camera to complainant and told him that employee of OP-1 would go to Ludhiana on 22.01.2016 for getting repaired camera. On 22.01.2016, complainant again visited the shop of OP-1 and handed over said camera to him, which OP-1 kept with him and assured to get it repaired from authorised service centre of Company at Ludhiana and OP-1 asked him to visit after 4-5 days and after 4-5 days, when complainant went to OP-1 to get his camera, OP-1 returned the camera with rude behaviour stating that said camera would not be repaired until or unless complainant pays Rs2,500/-for repair and when complainant reminded OP-1 of warranty period, he was told to talk directly to service centre. It is further contended that even issuance of legal notice to OPs bore no fruit. He has stressed on bill Ex C-2, which reveals that complainant is the consumer of OPs, said bill also shows the warranty period of two years written over it clearing the fact that OPs have been deficient in providing proper services to complainant to which they are bound vide their bill issued by them. If there is any defect in the camera, OP was duty bound to repair it or get it repaired from authorized service centre. Ex C-4 is also copy of bill showing the fact that complainant was given receipt regarding complaint of defect in said camera. Service Warranty Card Ex C-5 proves the pleading of complainant that he was assured of warranty against any defect. Ex C-6 is the copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OPs for removing the defect occurred in said camera. This act of Ops has caused great harassment to complainant which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

8                                                      In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby accepted with direction to OPs to replace the said camera with new one of same model within one month from the date of receipt of this order and in case of failure to refund the price of camera with interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of filing the complaint till final realization of the payment. OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order jointly and severally by OPs,  failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 4.05.2016

Member                               President                                                 (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)