Order-38.
Date-22/09/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Manoj Kumar Biswas by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one piece of NIKON Digital Camera (Model No. L28) with Case, Battery Charger and Memory Card from the op no.1’s shop at a price of Rs. 5,300/-.Soon after taking delivery of the above goods at his own home complainant found that the camera was not working and finding defect in the brand new product, complainant immediately complained to the authorized Service Centre and when complainant was advised to take his camera to the authorized Service Centre of op no.1.Accordingly complainant met with authorized Service Centre namely M/s. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Branch Office at PS Plus Building, 1st Floor, 238A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata- 20 where they checked complainant’s camera (Service Order No. SO/13-14/004264 dated 24.05.2013) and complainant was told by the Service Centre that the brand new Camera is .badly damaged set and battery leakage. and brand new camera need to repair for which they will charge of Rs. 5,000/- only and after that complainant came to the shop of the op and informed the actual position and also submitted their service centre order copy of their shop for verification but till now the op did not inform anything about this matter to the complainant which is beyond the imagination of the complainant.On several occasions complainant requested the op to replace the camera but on all occasions avoided rather refused to do so.
Thereafter finding no other way, complainant on 04.12.2013 sent a registered letter to the op demanding them to replace the camera and the op received the said letter on 07.12.2013, but no response is yet received.It appeared that the ops cheated the complainant and complainant suffered for which complainant lost a sum of Rs. 5,300/- only for purchasing the camera from the op and also has not got the service from the Service Centre of the company for which this complaint is filed.
On the other hand Khosla Electronics (P) Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the same and op is just a dealer of electronics products and they are not manufacturer and delivery receipt speaks that it was received by the complainant after full satisfaction and complainant signed in the said invoice and for which the present op is not liable for any payment of compensation.
It is further submitted that as per his statement, Service Centre noted down after inspection and a report .badly damaged set and battery leakage..So, complainant has nothing to do. In that case it shall be decided by the manufacturer and Service Centre.Subsequently Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. was added as a party, they appeared on 09.07.2015 and submitted written statement stating that the badly damaged set and battery leakage had been caused due to mis-handling by the complainant and for which as per warranty clause same cannot be changed and the same was beyond economical repair and this was duly informed to the complainant and the camera was returned to the complainant in the same, unrepaired condition on 24.07.2013 and all other allegations of the complainant is false and fabricated and in fact the defect as admitted was due to damage caused by the complainant for mis-handling and there was no breach of service on the part of the answering op and the service records evidently shows the efficient services being provided to the complainant and reason for non-function of the same was also reported to op and op never harassed the complainant and present complaint has been filed on vexatious ground and in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
Fact remains that the case was initially filed against Khosla Electronics (P) Ltd. Subsequently at the time of hearing the case, complainant was asked to include manufacturing company as party and that was done by amending the claim.Thereafter notice was served upon the op no.2 the company M/s. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., they filed written statement and thereafter the case was closed finally for decision.
In the present case after considering the complaint and written version and particularly the document that is Tax Invoice-cum-Cash Memo dated 15.05.2013 that complainant purchased one digital camera carry case +B/charger and memory card at a total cost of Rs. 5,300/-.Regarding sell of the same by the Khosla Electronics is not denied and truth is that just on 24.05.2013 that is after lapse of 9 days, complainant deposited the same to Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Service Centre as he found that the set was not functioned and Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. reported by issuing a report that the said set was badly damaged and the said battery leakage inside the body and their remark is .for inspection showing beyond economical to repair, battery lock broken, set dead, set not working..
But from the said report of the op no.2 it is clear that the said set was never repaired by any unauthorized 3rd party, no non-standard accessories or parts are used, there was no water logging or soiled product inside there, no rust/fungus sand were found, no voliation of other warranty provision, no noticeable scratches on body, but only they found the battery leakage and it may be on body.
Considering that report of the op no.2, it is clear that there was no noticeable scratches on the body, that means the said set was not mis-handled and the said set did not fall from his hand because there was no crack anywhere not even in the battery.But after considering the report of the op no.2 dated 24.05.2013, it is clear that due to battery leakage inside the body, the said set was badly damaged.Now question is that within 9 days from the date of purchase how a battery leakage can be caused.A new set was purchased just on 15.05.2013 and within 4 or 5 days, the battery leakage was detected by the op.
Truth is that the product is COOLPIX L-28 SILVER and serial no. is 70000275 but no name of manufacturer or month of manufacturing is found either in the Cash Memo or in the report of op no.2.In this context it is to be mentioned that battery leakage cannot be caused if inside set the water/sand etc. are not entered into and considering the report of the op no.2, it is clear that op did not violate any conditions or provision of warranty.When that is the fact, then it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the complainant to use the same and in fact water was not logged or no soil was found inside the battery portion, only found that the battery was damaged that means damaged battery was inside the said camera and that was sold in a packed condition.
But after consulting different companies, manufacturing history of camera, it is found that company at the time of packing the entire item of camera the battery is not placed inside the camera.But battery is kept in a separate pack.In the present case compact set in a sealed box was sold and op no.1 has stated that at the relevant time everything was intact that means battery was inside the box of the said camera and probably the damaged battery was inside and after purchase and at the time of use it was found that the camera was not operating and so forth with complainant reported to the op that is admitted by the op no.1 the seller.
In this context it is to be mentioned that battery cannot be damaged if that battery cannot be found wet due to coming into contact with water and from the report of the op no.2 it is found that there was no question of water logging or crack or soil inside the camera or the casket inside the camera.In this context we have learnt from the history of battery leakage of different companies who are manufacturing battery, it is found that battery leakage is caused when the battery loses its capacity to take charge system and when such a battery is found completely lost its capacity to give any power and if such a battery is fixed inside the casket of the camera or any other electronic goods and if it is used, in that case battery leakage is found in case of non-chargeable batteries.
Otherwise there is no question of battery leakage even due to fall of the battery from the hand to floor.But if damaged battery is supplied by the company who is selling the electronic goods with battery or camera or mobile etc. in that case chance of battery leakage is there.But in this case most interesting factor is that opinion of op no.2 is that there was battery leakage and battery leakage caused inside damage of the body of camera.If inside body there was battery leakage why in the initial observation about product op has noted that there was no water logging or soil inside or sand or rust/fungus.But after studying different manufacturing companies’ books on battery leakage etc. it is found that the battery leakage cannot be found within 5 or 6 or 10 days from the date of purchase of the item,if it is not damaged prior to that.Apparently battery leakage in the present case cannot be causedthe present item is the chargeable battery and the chargeable battery cannot be found leaked within 7 or 8 days from the date of purchase, if such chargeable battery which was supplied by the company or the seller was not damaged prior to that.
Truth is that there is report of the op that there was no violation of any warranty provision by the complainant and fact remains that complainant did not repair it or placed it to any unauthorized person, but no non-standard accessories was used and all those factors simply prove that the chargeable battery was defective and that was supplied by the company and the dealer.
Truth is that along with each and every set of camera there are certain battery supplied by the company which is kept in a packed condition and that is called chargeable battery and that is placed inside the casket with company’s seal.In the present case from the report of the op it is found that the battery leakage was found within 7 or 8 days and that cannot be caused due to mis-handling when tampering of product has not been proved and op has not challenged it.At the same time there is no such allegation of the ops that any other type of charger set was used by the complainant for which battery leakage was caused.But it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that battery which was inside the set of camera at the time of purchase defective damaged battery which was supplied along with camera by the ops for which complainant suffered.
Most interesting factor is that about battery, there is no defence of the ops that the set somehow fell downand the battery was damaged and in this regard we have read some articles of the manufacturing company of the battery and it is learnt that a new chargeable battery cannot be leaked if there is no manufacturing defect inside the said battery.But in this case ops are silent about that.They have not stated anywhere that battery can be leaked within 7 days from the date of purchase of the camera and question of misuse of battery does not arise in this case because he did not change the battery which was fixed with the original camera.Moreover from the opinion of the op no.2 regarding battery leakage, we find that it is unscientific and they have no knowledge about component, about chargeable battery. Chargeable batteries are dried batteries’ with dry wall and if said chargeable battery is found damaged then it is since the time of manufacturing that means it is manufacturing defect.
So, considering that fact, it is clear that the chargeable battery which was sealed at the time of purchase, which was inside the box of the op no.2 was already a damaged battery for which leakage may be caused and due to such battery leakage, the entire camera set was damaged as battery leakage was caused inside the camera.So, the said camera was badly damaged and no doubt in this case, it is proved that the camera was sold along with such damaged battery and after placing that battery by the seller, complainant used the camera and satisfied that it was operating but after 3 or 4 days it was found that camera was not operating and reported the matter to op no.1 and op no.1 has admitted that he asked the complainant to go to op no.2 and when complainant went to op no.2 and op no.2 reported such a report.
But peculiar factor is that the entire set was damaged, it is damaged due to battery leakage.No nonsense and idiot person can also believe that dried chargeable battery can be damaged by the user of the camera, the component of a battery is dried component and it is packed and same is called battery and inside that there is some dried component.All chargeable batteries even if it falls within water and forthwith taken out and dried up, there is no question of battery leakage as per expert opinion of the battery manufacturing expert, as it is evident from several articles.So, the report of op no.2 regarding leakage of battery simply proves that damaged battery was inside that camera and that caused damage the inside body of the camera and no doubt manufacturer sent the damaged battery and that was sold by the dealer and that was sold by the op no.2 through dealer, knowing fully well about the condition of the battery when no customer shall be able to detect any sort of battery damage apparently if it is not properly tested by such electrical equipment whether the battery is damaged or not.At the time of said supply of the set, op did not check the battery and did not satisfy the complainant that the battery is okay.In the Cash Invoice there is no such opinion that battery is checked and is found okay and truth is that due to battery leakage, this camera set was damaged and that battery was supplied by the ops and that battery was not purchased by the complainant separately and from the report of the op dated 24.05.2013, it is clear that no below standard accessories or parts was used by the complainant that means complainant did not insert any other new battery except the battery which was supplied by the ops at the time of purchase.
Considering all the above fact and materials, we are convinced to hold that damaged, defective battery was supplied by the op at the time of selling the said set and that was inside the packet of the camera and that was placed and thereafter complainant checked the camera in the shop of the op being satisfied he went to his house, but after 3 or 4 days it was found that camera was not working.Complainant is not expert man.So, he went to the op no.1, op no.1 sent him to op no.2 and op no.2 submitted report.But this report is nothing but baseless report.If such sort of nonsense experts are accepted, then invariably they shall have to make such sort of report and Forum shall have to swallow it as the company’s expert report then same is accepted as sufficient to hold that damage was caused by the complainant but that is not the principle of law.It is the duty of the Forum to search out who supplied the battery, how a battery is manufactured, whether a reasonable and prudent man can decide after purchase and after 2 or 3 days use that the battery is leaked or not.
In the present case after studying different articles regarding chargeable battery and its manufacturing process, its maintainability, its life expectancy and cause of damage, we have gathered that the present battery was damaged from inception and that was sold by the ops and practically for their adopting of deceitful manner of trade, complainant is deceived.
Truth is that for their defective damaged battery, the said set was damaged and it was not for mis-handling of the entire camera set by the complainant because report shows that complainant did not violate any clause of the warranty, then it is proved that it was not damaged for the fault of the complainant or for mis-using for the same by the complainant.Onlycause was battery leakage and truth is that damaged battery was inside the said camera for which leakage was caused and subsequent fact is that the entire set was damaged.Fact remains that all over the world market Japanese made of cameras are being sold and along with batteries which are kept in a separate packet and as per instruction of the camera company what type of battery shall be used along with camera and in respect of all products of Nikon, their batteries are kept inside the packet along with camera and at the time of selling battery was placed inside the casket and lid is closed thereafter it is tested by the and customers being satisfied purchase and this procedure was adopted by the op.1. Op no.2 was satisfied that there was no damage in the 3rd or 4th day at the very inception for which they are silent about the defects of battery but their technicians invariably unskilled reported that there was battery leakage and for which the said set was damaged.But nowhere there is any report that battery was damaged due to use any force or fall in the water or for using sub-standard charger etc. only their casual observation is due to mis-handling.
In this context it is to be mentioned that as per battery producing company’s technical report we find that leakage battery can only be found when battery is used continuously and battery’scapacity is lost.So, there is a pre-condition that in case of chargeable battery continuously for hours, a battery can be used but thereafter sometime should be given for cooling the said battery, thereafter again the camera can be used.But in the present case complainant failed to use the camera for a few minutes as camera did not operate and it happened within 2 or 3 days.There is no such testing of the battery by the ops by any battery expert and no such report is submitted by op that those batteries were used continuously for hours together for which it was damaged and leakage was caused.
In this regard we have gathered from the article of Battery University that Lithium-ion Batteries are safe and heat related failures are rare and the battery manufacturers achieve this high reliability by adding three layers of protection and they are (1) limiting the amount of active material to achieve a workable equilibrium of energy density and safety, (2) inclusion of various safety mechanisms within the cell, and (3) the addition of an electronic protection circuit in the battery pack.To achieve maximum run time with high usage of lithium-ion in cell phones, digital cameras and laptops, use cobalt-based lithium-ion.Manganese is the newer of the two chemistries and offers superior thermal stability and it can sustain temperatures of upto 250 degree Centigrade (482 degree Fahrenheit) before becoming unstable.In addition, manganese has a very low internal resistance and can deliver high current on demand and increasingly those batteries are used for power tools and medical devices and hybrid and electric vehicles will be next.
At the same time the said authorities and battery specialist have confirmed that lithium-ion battery is in existence since 1991 and because of the inherent instability of lithium metal, research shifted to a non-metallic lithium battery using lithium-ions and lithium-ions system is safe and today lithium-ion is one of the most successful and safe battery chemistries available.Because long battery runtimes have always to be used by the consumers and battery manufacturers responded by packing more active material into a cell and making the electrodes and separator thinner and this enabled a doubling of energy density since lithium-ion was introduced in 1991.
From their opinion it is found that due to manufacturing defect heat related battery failures are taken very seriously and manufacturers chose a conservative approach and in such a case it is the duty of the manufacturer of the battery to replace the battery and puts the consumer at ease and lawyers at bay.From the said opinion of the battery specialist, it is found that the battery cannot be leaked for handling by the consumers if it is lithium-ion battery.
Another factor is that battery with a faulty protection circuit may function normally but it does not provide protection and a faulty charger may also destroy the battery’s protection circuit and such damage can permanently fuse the solid-state switches in an on position without the user knowing.In fact Battery University monitors the entire complications of the matter regarding complication of battery over the world and after considering the opinion regarding the entire position of the battery and manufacturer’s report by Battery University, we have gathered that the present report by the technicianof the op is baseless, unscientific and they have their no knowledge about component of the battery and the allegation of the op that leakage of battery was caused by the customer is completely false and fabricated because experts of Battery University have confirmed that even a battery falls within the water and after that if it is taken out and rub with dry pieces of clothes, the battery cannot be damaged or leaked.This is the positive side and safety and precaution of the present batteries which are chargeable battery in the market since 1991.
Considering all the above factors, we have gathered that the battery which was supplied along with the digital camera had its manufacturing defect and in this regard very recently heat related battery failures were pointed out in respect of battery manufactured by Dell and Apple and that were replaced by the companies to their consumers at ease.In this regard Sony Energy, the maker of the lithium-ion cells in question, says that on rare occasions microscopic metal particles may come into contact with other parts of the battery cell, leading to a short circuit within the cell, might be such sort of incident happened in case of present battery and that battery was not tested by any institute by the op or by their any testing house.But unskilled technicians stated about leakage of battery caused by the customer due to mis-handling but such an opinion is not accepted all over the world and also expert of the Battery University.
As per authoritative opinion of Sony Energy Devices the battery relies wholly on the protection devices that are built into the cell and a lithium-ion battery will simply power down when a short circuit occurs.But defect is inherent to the electrochemical cell, such as in contamination caused by microscopic metal particles, probably this anomaly has not been properly detected in the present case for which such a faulty report was filed by the ops unskilled technician who has no knowledge about component of battery.
Considering the numbers of opinion on lithium-ion battery used in the market including the present battery we have gathered that such a battery cannot be damaged due to mis-handling by the consumer and in this regard the return of the battery by the Apple and Dell has confirmed that due to manufacturing defect the present battery was found damaged but not for the so called mis-handling of the complainant as alleged.
In the light of the above observation and relying upon opinion of battery expert we are convinced to hold that opinion of the technician of the op that Battery leakage was due to min-handling of the battery by the customer is completely false, fabricated without any scientific base and on the contrary it is found that the present battery which was with the digital camera was defective and there was some manufacturing defect for which it was heated and for that reason the entire camera set was damaged but not for the laches on the part of the consumer, the present complainant or for alleged mis-handling of the battery by the complainant.
In the light of the above observation and findings we are convinced to hold that the entire defence of the op is baseless, without any foundation, without any scientific method and against world-wide opinion about the defect of the battery, generally caused due to manufacturing defect and so we are convinced that there was no fault or mis-handling on the part of the complainant in using the battery and practically this set (digital camera) was not working within 3 or 4 days from the date of purchase and on the 7 day it was detected by the op’s technician that the battery was found leaked and their technician reported that it was damaged due to mis-handling by the customer that is complainant and it is the principal provision that for faulty reason there was no need to replace the same.But all over the world also articles like battery in respect of such sort of damage if the report of Sony Energy Devices is considered about the defects then such a defect is common in case of manufacturing defect, during a thermal runaway, the high heat of the failing cell can propagate to the next cell, causing it to become thermally unstable as well, and in some cases a chain reaction occurs in which each cell disintegrates at its own timetable and a pack can get destroyed within a few short seconds or linger on for several hours as each cell is consumed on-by-one and to increase safety, packs are fitted with dividers to protect the failing cell from spreading to neighbouring cells. But even then due to presence of electrotable brand of metallic articles such incident takes place in respect of battery.It is also opined by the battery experts that a pack can get destroyed within a few short seconds or linger on for several hours as each cell is consumed on-by-one due to manufacturing defect.
So, we are confirmed that the present damage of the battery was not caused by the complainant but it was completely damaged due to manufacturing defect.Op has not stated that who is manufacturer of the battery, but battery was supplied along with camera, then it is clear that for supplying such defective battery the camera was also damaged for which complainant is not liable but negligent and deficient manner of service andonly for supply of a defective batteryand the entire camera set was damaged for supplying damaged battery set by the op for which ops are found liable to return the camera or to refund the entire price amount of the said camera along with battery and in this regard negligence and deficiency and at the same time deceitful manner of trade on the part of the ops is well proved by the complainant due to the authoritative opinion of Battery University regarding present battery support no doubt it was a damaged battery and it had its manufacturing defectwhat caused the entire damage of the camera set.
In the result, complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 3.000/- against op no.2 and same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Ops are hereby directed to return the entire price amount of the said set i.e. Rs. 5,300/- and also a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for harassing the complainant in such a manner and for selling such a defective damaged battery set with the camera to the complainant and for adopting such deceitful manner of trade and to pay the entire decretal amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost.
Op no.1 shall have to pay litigation cost only, but op no.2 shall have to pay Rs. 5,300/- the price amount, Rs.3,000/- as compensation and litigation cost Rs. 3,000/- i.e. in total Rs. 11,300/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day each till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that ops are reluctant to comply this order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986, shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the ops.
