Order No. 16 Dated 18/08/2016.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Nikon Coolpix S9200 Brown camera from Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 23.2.13 at cost of Rs.14,800/-. While the camera was being used pre puja festival in the month of Oct. 2013 it was found that the camera was not functioning properly then he contacted Nikon Service Centre, Kolkata. They charges for Rs.15,274/- for service centre instead of rendering free service during the warranty period. Complainant while contacted the o.p. he was not properly treated by o.p. for which complainant had to file this case.
It was specifically stated by the complainant that since after purchase within the warranty period the camera did not function as such the complainant by filing the case has prayed for to replace the old one along with interest @ 10% p.a. and Rs.5000/- for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.
The o.p. has contested the case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated by the o.p. that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant explained the distorted version of the fact and he is not entitled to get any relief.
It was further stated that on 1.11.13 complainant deposited the said camera with o.p. service centre for its repair of the defect not pertaining to manufacturing. On examination it was found that the said camera was badly damaged and it was observed by the expert that the camera was water damaged scratch and rust in body and at the time of handing over the service order complainant accepted the said assessment of the expert of o.p. So far as the warranty is concerned that Nikon digital product is guaranteed against any manufacturing defect from one full year from the date of purchase. The warranty does not apply to any of the followings: (1) Defects of malfunctioning caused by damage resulting from proper care, (2) Damage or defect caused by accident, (3) Damage caused by during transportation, (4) Damage caused by any modification or service centre performed by person(s) other than Nikon service facility etc. (5) Any consequential or incidental damages resulting from any breach of warranty expressed or implied applicable to the said product. This warranty card is issued only at the time of original purchase.
In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated above, the o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the party the following points are to be determined:
- Was the product purchased by the complainant covered under the warranty.
- Whether there is any defect in the functioning of the said product during the warranty period.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repeatition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that in order to prove that the camera was purchased from the shop of Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. receipt has been filed and other documents has also been filed wherefrom it is evident that the camera was purchased from Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that it is an admitted fact that the camera was manufactured by o.p. and the o.p. has not denied the said fact. Only point raised by o.p. that the camera was not covered under the conditions of warranty. It was further alleged by the complainant that while he went to show the camera for non functioning, after examination of the same the bill was handed over to the complainant by demanding the amount of Rs.15,274/- towards the charge for servicing which was an excessive amount than that of the purchase price of the said camera. Since the camera did not function properly during the warranty period therefore complainant had to file this case.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that in the card provided for warranty there was specifically stated that the warranty does not apply to any of the followings: (1) Defects of malfunctioning caused by damage resulting from proper care, (2) Damage or defect caused by accident, (3) Damage caused by during transportation, (4) Damage caused by any modification or service centre performed by person(s) other than Nikon service facility etc. (5) Any consequential or incidental damages resulting from any breach of warranty expressed or implied applicable to the said product. This warranty card is issued only at the time of original purchase.
On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that since the camera was handled wrongly and due to such mishandling of the camera the said defect occurred which does not cover within the warranty and the complainant will not be able to get any relief from this case and accordingly o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the camera was purchased on 28.2.13 and the complainant in order to prove the said purchase of camera has filed the cash memo. It is also found from the materials on record that the camera became ineffective due to defect arose in the said camera and the said defect occurred during the warranty period. It is also an admitted fact that the camera was taken to o.p. and o.p. instead of replacing the camera gave estimate which was much more value than that of the price paid by the complainant. From the warranty card it appears that the warranty covered for one year and the camera became defective within the warranty period which has not been disputed by o.p., only dispute raised by o.p. that the exclusion of the purchaser regarding from getting the benefit from the warranty period the exclusions were cited, but those clauses do not disclose that the complainant will not get the benefit of the warranty and the defects pointed out by o.p. was only mentioned to deprive the complainant from getting the benefit within the warranty period and the o.p. instead of cooperating with the complainant misbehaved with him and charged an extra amount more than the price paid by the complainant.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the complainant was deprived from getting benefit of the warranty period and the o.p. is liable to pay the value of the camera and also the complainant will be entitled to get the damages and litigation expenses for which the complainant had to filed this case for redressal of his grievances and there was gross violation of the deficiency in service on the part of o.p. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.104 /2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.14,800/- (Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred) only towards the value of the camera in question and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
