THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 266-14
Date of Institution : 14.5.2014
Date of Decision : 18.2.2015
Ankur Khanna alias Sonu son of Sh. Mohinder Khanna, resident of 1798/4, Katra Charat Singh, Gali Loharan Wali, Amritsar
.....Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. 17, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) through its Managing Director
M/s. Shiv Ram Lazor Lab, 37 66GF Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor Sh.Ajesh Mahajan
.....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.Danish Bansal,Adv
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. S.S.Salaria,Adv.
For opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President, Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
& Sh. Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Ankur Khanna under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 10.10.2013 he purchased lense No.33261970, 18-105 for a sum of Rs. 18450/- from opposite party No.2. The said product carried one year warranty against any manufacturing defect. Complainant has alleged that during the warranty period, it developed fungus as the pictures
-2-
taken by using the lense started becoming out of focus. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2, who forwarded the same to opposite party No.1. But the service centre of opposite party No.1 declined to replace the product or to repair it free of costs stating that warranty does not apply to damage caused by water. Complainant has alleged that the lense in question was never exposed to water and was never used in rain. Complainant has alleged that the lense is very much covered under the warranty for which the opposite party No.1 company is liable to repair the product free of costs or replace it. But opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 either to replace the lense with new one or to repair it to the satisfaction of the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the liability of the replying opposite party is limited as per terms and conditions of warranty to repair or replace the defective parts only and no such assurance for replacing the product is given by the replying opposite party. It was submitted that as per term No. 6 of the warranty card, any damage caused due to accident,sand, water,dust , fungus, battery leakage etc are not covered under the warranty. It was submitted that when the said product was brought to the replyig opposite party, it was having problem of focus, fungus,cutted zoom ring, tempered set as the complainant himself or some local mechanic tried to affect some repair, for which the complainant was not authorized to do so and on account of this, warranty was void and same stands expired due to act and conduct of the complainant. As such the complainant is not entitled to any relief and he cannot claim replacement of refund . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
-3-
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that replying opposite party is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 for selling the products of opposite party No.1, in retail. It was submitted that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the same was forwarded alongwith product to the service centre of opposite party No.1. It was submitted that no relief has been claimed by complainant against opposite party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C-1, copies of e-mails dated 14.2.2014, 15.2.2014 and 7.2.2014 Ex.C-2 to C-4, copy of warranty card dated 10.10.2013 Ex.C-5, copy of service order Ex.C-6.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jogi Francis,General Manager Ex.OP1/1, copy of retail Invoice of service Ex.OP1/2, copy of comprehensive warranty card Ex.OP1/3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties, with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased lense No.33261970 , 18-105 mm from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 10.10.2013 Ex.C-1 for Rs. 18,450/- alongwith service warranty card Ex.C-5. The warranty was for one full year from the date of purchase. The complainant submitted that during this warranty period the camera developed fungus and as such the picture taken by using the lense/camera started becoming out of focus. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2,who further forwarded the complaint alongwith product(camera) to the service centre of opposite party No.1. However, service centre of opposite party
-4-
No.1 declined to repair it free of cost, stating that the warranty does not apply to the camera in question and as such the repair will be done on chargeable basis as per
e-mail Ex.C-2. However, opposite party No.2 further sent the request of the complainant to the service centre of opposite party No.1 by stating that the complainant has mentioned that in 10 pictures shoot, two pictures are outofocus, so no fungus was in the lense. There is no fungus even on service chart order No. Amr.000498 Dated 28.1.2014 and the complainant requested that the camera be checked again and it should be repaired as the same is within the warranty period. The said e-mail sent by opposite party No.2 to the service centre of opposite party No.1 is Ex.C-3 dated 14.2.2014. The service centre of opposite party No.1 vide service sheet Ex.C-6 dated 28.1.2014 submitted that initial observation on product states no fungus ,no mishandling/tempering of product, no battery leakage, no damage of body nor any violation of other warranty provision, no scratches on the body. However, they stated that zoom ring was missing. On this ground the opposite party did not repair the camera of the complainant nor returned the camera to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that even in the warranty card issued by the opposite party against this product Ex.C-5, there is no word fungus in the conditions of the warranty. However, it was written that this warranty does not apply to damage or defect caused by accident,sand,water or battery leakage only. The opposite party was,therefore, not justified in not repairing the camera of the complainant on the ground that it has fungus and that fungus is not covered under the warranty. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the oppsoite parties.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that the complainant purchased the camera in question from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. However, complaint was received from the complainant regarding the functioning of the camera in question which was forwarded by opposite party No.2
-5-
to the service centre of opposite party No.1. So under the warranty card, it is the opposite party No.1, who has to repair/replace the camera in question, as such opposite party No.2 has no concern with the same.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that under the warranty, opposite party No.1 is only bound to set right the lense/camera by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. As per term 6 of the warranty card Ex.OP1/3 any damage caused due to accident, sand, water,dust,fungus, battery leakage etc. , are not covered under the warranty. The camera of the complainant was having problem of focus due to fungus. Further some local mechanic tried to affect some repair on the camera for which the complainant was not authorized , as such the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. Further, the warranty stands expired due to act and conduct of the complainant. Opposite party No.1, is therefore, not bound to repair the camera of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the camera in question from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1 on 10.10.2013 vide invoice Ex.C-1 for a sum of Rs. 18,450/-. However, in January 2014, the said lense/camera became defective as it developed fungus. Resultantly the pictures taken by using the said camera started becoming out of focus. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 with the aforesaid complaint in the camera and opposite party No.2 forwarded the complaint of the complainant to the service centre of opposite party No.1 as was received by the service centre of the opposite party through their service order No. AMR 000498 dated 28.1.2014 Ex.C-6 in which the opposite party itself admitted that the initial observation on product, show that there was no mishandling/tempering of product, no water logged/solid product, no battery
-6-
leakage nor repaired by any authorized/third party, no rust/fungus/sand in the camera, no damage on body, no violation of any other warranty provision, no scratch noticed on the body of the camera. However Zoom ring was found missing. The service centre of the opposite party sent e-mail Ex.C-2 dated 15.2.2014 to opposite party No.2 that the exact issue in the product can be confirmed by service team after thorough inspection and the repair will be done on chargeable basis. On the basis of this e-mail, complainant submitted that there is no fungus in the lense because in 10 pictures shoot through this camera , 2 pictures are out of focus,whereas 8 pictures were correct, as such there is no fungus even on service chart order dated 28.1.2014 Ex.C-6 mentioned by the service centre itself. This reply of the complainant was forwarded by opposite party No.2 to the service centre of opposite party No.1 vide e-mail Ex.C-3. But the service centre of opposite party No.1 neither repaired the camera of the complainant nor sent any reply to the complainant. So the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. However, opposite party produced terms and conditions of the warranty and that too of 2 year comprehensive warranty Ex.OP1/3 in which it has been written that the warranty does not cover damage caused due to accident, sand, water,dust,fungus, battery leakage , etc. This two year comprehensive warranty and its terms and conditions are not applicable to the camera purchased by the complainant. Opposite party has failed to prove on record that this two year comprehensive warranty relates to the camera purchased by the complainant. Whereas the opposite party has issued warranty card to the complainant Ex.C-5 at the time of purchase of the camera by the complainant which is dated 10.10.2013 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the warranty is for 1 full year only from the date of purchase and not for two years. Further this warranty does not cover damage or defect caused by accident,sand,water or water leakage only. No word fungus has been mentioned in this warranty card Ex.C-5 issued by the opposite
-7-
party to the complainant at the time of purchase of the camera on 10.10.2013. Opposite party has failed to connect two years comprehensive warranty, terms and conditions produced by the opposite party Ex.OP1/3 with the camera purchased by the complainant. As such we hold that this two year comprehensive warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP1/3 are not applicable to the camera purchased by the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the warranty issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant at the time of purchase of the camera dated 10.10.2013 Ex.C-5 the opposite party is bound to repair the camera of the complainant because in the service card issued by the opposite party to the complainant Ex.C-6 dated 28.1.2014 there was no defect in the camera . Even in this service card Ex.C-6 it has been written that rust/fungus/sand not found. Even it has been mentioned that camera was not repaired by unauthorized third party. So the opposite party canot be allowed to state that the camera was found tried to be reapired by some unauthorized person as alleged by opposite party No.1. The camera in question has been lying with the opposite party since 28.1.2014 and they failed to repair the same on the ground that it shall be repaired on chargeable basis. This plea of the opposite party is not tenable because the camera became defective within the warranty period of one year as it was purchased on 10.10.2013, however became defective on 28.1.2014 as is evident from the job sheet card issued by the service centre of opposite party No.1 Ex.C-6 dated 28.1.2014 . By not repairing the camera in question under the warranty period, opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency of service towards the complainant.
11. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the camera in question of the complainant making it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the camera is not repairable , then opposite party No.1 is liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model. Opposite
-8-
party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
18.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
