Date of filing :- 20/08/2015.
Date of Order:- 26/09/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 49 of 2015
Sri Manmath Tripathy, aged 46(forty six) years, S/o late Ganapati Tripathy, R/o. At-Ward No.16(sixteen), Brahmachari, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh
..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
Nikon India Private Limited, Plot No.17, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India,
Osho Vision (Bhubaneswar), At- Bapuji Nagar, Plot No.44, Ist Floor, Back side of Spectra Et. Near Old S.B.I. Lane, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurdha
Sibani Technologies, At- Gandhi Chowk, Main Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.K. Naik, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri D.D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two)
and No. 3(three) :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.26/09/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that, he had purchased two sets of Nikon camera on Date 18/04/2014 from the Opposite Party No.3(three) who was the Local Distributor of Opposite Party No-1(one), the manufacturer of the same, vide serial no. of both the camera are 1108919, and 12005151 respectively. But during the subsistence of the warranty period of the same, both the camera did not function. As such the Complainant approached before the Opposite Party No.2(two) who is the servicing center of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and in response the Opposite Party No.2(two) repaired one of the said cameras bearing No.11008919 stating to have repaired the “Battery chamber unit & applied Dust Prevention sheet’’ and delivered him the same being OK, but the Opposite Party No.2(two) returned the camera bearing No.12005151 to the Complainant as it was, without repairing on the ground that battery leak has damaged the main PCB, Flash unit and as the estimate of repair is not economical and the estimate was disapproved.
With such aforesaid action of the Opposite Party No.2(two) the Complainant asked him to replace the same as it was a manufacturing defects and was within the period of warranty but the Opposite Party No. 2(two) flately denied to replace the same on 26/02/2015 and hence the present case with a prayer claiming for replacement of two sets of the aforesaid cameras along with Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand)only as compensation from all the Opposite Parties as are being jointly & severally liable for such of his claim with the allegation of deficiencies of service on their part.
After going through the documents filed by the Complainant and hearing the advocate for the Complainant the Forum was pleased to admit the case and directed to serve notice on the Opposite Parties but in response the Opposite Party No.1(one) only appeared through his Advocate and filed his version and surprisingly the Opposite Party No. 2(two) & No.3(three) did not even bother to appear before the Forum though service of summon was duely served upon them and sufficient time was given to them lest they would come and file their version, as such seeing no other alternative the Forum was pleased to set both the Opposite Party No. 2(two) & No. 3(three) ex-parte on 17/02/2016 and fixed the case for hearing on merit.
The Complainant has relied upon the money receipt of the Sibani Technologies the Opposite Party No.3(three), the warranty cards issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one), and the Tax Invoices issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in favour of the Complainant against his such purchase of his said two cameras, and the Opposite Party No.1(one) has also relied upon the same documents except the money receipt. Further more in his version he has clearly denied the allegation and claim of the Complainant on the ground that the defects has occurred in the cameras were not because of the manufacturing defects but because of mishandling of the same by the Complainant by inserting non-chargeable battery in it and as such has violated the condition of warranty granted by the manufacturer resulting to which not entitled for any relief as he has sought for.
So on perusal of the record and vividly scrutinizing the documents filed by both the parties and after hearing the submission made by both the learned Advocates on their behalf, some points as below mentioned have cropped up for determination.
Whether the said cameras purchased by the Complainant have got manufacturing defects or not .
Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the said cameras and for compensation as claimed by him.
While dealing with question as to whether cameras purchased by the Complainant suffers from manufacturing defects or not, we perused the complaint and version filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also after hearing the Advocates of the respective parties we found that both the cameras have got the similar problem resulting to which stopped functioning at a time and also at the same time both of them are placed before the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1(one) for the self same problem and out of the two bearing No.11008919 was repaired and returned with OK to which the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version in para No.3(three) he has admitted that as there was some minor damage on the battery chamber as it was repaired, but the other camera bearing No.12005151 could not be repaired as such was returned with out any repair with a remark from the Opposite Party No.2(two) that the same could not be repaired as it was having batteries leakage problem which has damaged the main PCB, FLASH, PCB UNIT and repair was not economical. More over it has not been mentioned any where by the Opposite Party No.2(two) who had undertaken the repair work that the same problem with those cameras might have gone wrong with the mishandling of the same or might be due to the use of non chargeable batteries by the Complainant as mentioned by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version in para No.3(three) neither it has been mentioned any where in any documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that non chargeable batteries had been used by the Complainant resulting to which such problem had occurred in those cameras so the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the argument placed by his Advocate is not substantiated by any evidence and also the report of the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his remark in case of the camera bearing serial No.11008919 that the Battery chamber unit repaired which indicates that there was some inherent defects which could be the reason for the leakage of the battery in the other set of camera also resulting to the damage of the MAIN PCB, FASH, PCB UNIT, and so far the remark of the Opposite Party No.2(two) about the economical part of repair is nowhere mentioned in any part of the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that it would be born by the Complainant in this case. More over the non appearance of the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) creates a cloud of doubt on their attitude. So in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that there was manufacturing defects in the cameras however as one of the two camera was repaired and handed over to the Complainant and subsequent to that he has not complained anything against that we took it to be OK. Accordingly it is affirmatively answered.
And so far as the question of entitlement of the Complainant for replacement of the camera in question and for compensation, as we have already held that the cameras are having inherent manufacturing defects, in our view the Complainant is entitled to get replacement of his one set of defective camera bearing Sl. No. 12005151 as per the warranty condition provided by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in Para No.12(twelve) wherein the relevant portion of the same clearly reveals that if the product is not repairable due to some technical reason replacement will be provided and our such view has been strengthen by some authoritarian analysis of the word warranty, a warranty is promise or guarantee given, a warranty is usually a written guarantee for a product and declares the maker’s responsibilities to repair or replace defective product or it’s parts. Which has also been fortified by the commitment made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on the back side of the warranty card while welcoming it’s customer to it’s Nikon family promising with the specific wording “Nikon’s commitment to you does not end at the closing, we are pleased to offer you a 2 years comprehensive warranty for your complete peace of mind’’ As such in this context we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get replacement of one set said camera from the Opposite Parties for which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiencies of service and are liable to replace the same to the Complainant. Hence ordered.
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such are directed to replace the Nikon camera set bearing No.12005151 with a new set of such equel model or the amount of the cost of such product amounting Rs. 4,250/- (Rupees four thousand two hundred fifty)only and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant within one month from the date of the order, failing which the amount awarded would incur interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till realization of the same.
Hence We pronounce the order in the open Forum to-day i.e 26/09/2016 and accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
. M e m b e r.
