CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)x

New Delhi – 110 016

                                               Case No. 191/2006

TOUCH OF INDIA

THROUGH ITS PROP.

DINESH GAMBHIR,

2121/19C/1,

NEW PATEL NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110020

………. Complainant

Vs.

PHOTO VISION

223, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

NEW DELHI- 110020

…………..Respondent

Date of Order: 21/12/2017

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia-Member

The complainant pertains to deficiency service on part of OP in replacement of part of a product purchased from OP.

The complainant purchased a camera Nikon Coolpix S1 Digital camera on 22/08/2005 for Rs. 25,425/-.  It is stated that the camera started giving problem right from the beginning.  It is further alleged that the complaint was made several times to the OP and the camera became dysfunctional on last week of January 2006.  The complainant took the camera for repair on 3/02/2006.  He was informed that the card reader was defective along with some other parts and would be replaced in 15 to 30 days.  The complainant requested them for a standby camera as his work would suffer.

The complainant again visited the OP for the camera wherein he was informed that the replacement would take further 30 days.  Subsequently the complainant purchases a new camera.  The complainant prays for refund.  Complainant has filed invoice for the camera service receipt dated 3/02/06. Subsequently the complainant filed a complaint on 14/03/2006.

OP in its reply has admitted the purchase of camera.  It is stated that the complainant approached OP on 2/03/2006 for repair. It was found that PCB had to be replaced free of cost as it was within warranty.  As OP did not have PCB in stock, an order was placed to the principal company M/S Nikon Singapore Pvt. Ltd. on 2/2/2006. The said part, was dispatched from Singapore on 8/03/2006 but it was detained at customs.  It was cleared by the custom authorities and deliver to OP on 19/04/2006 after completion of necessary formalities.  The part was replaced and intimation was given to complainant vide letter dated 29/04/2006.  OP had further extended the warranty of the camera till 21/10/2005.  OP has filed letter dated 29/04/2006, 8/05/2006 and 9/06/2006 sent to complainant. 

The purchase of camera by the complainant on 22/08/2005 is admitted by both the parties and the service receipt dated 3/02/2006 is also admitted.  The service receipt shows that the card cannot be read.  Though it is alleged by the complainant that the said camera started giving problems soon after he purchased, there is no reliable and convincing evidence in the shape of job card/e-mail/ letter etc. that has been led to prove that the complainant ever reported any defects in the camera to the opposite party. It’s imputation appears to be vague and indefinite as no date and month has been mentioned as to on which date the camera started giving problems.

The first job sheet is dated 3/02/2006. It is also admitted by both the parties that the card was not working properly and as the camera was in warranty, the defective part would be replaced free of cost.  OP had explained that the part was to be imported from Singapore, there would be delay in the repair.  The letter dated 29/04/2006 is reproduced as below:

With reference to the above, please be informed that we have repaired your Nikon coolpix S1 Digital Camera ( bearing S1 7314172) completely free of cost UNDER WARRANTY and the same is now in good working condition...... we are extremely sorry for the unfortunate delay in getting your camera repaired for want of necessary spares from our principals which we had just received from our principals M/S NIKON CORPORATION. As a very special case, we extend the warranty period of the said Camera Body for further two months. The warranty will now expire on 21/10/2005( in lieu of 21/08/2005 scheduled earlier). The same has been intimated to in complainant again letter dated 9/06/2006.

It is manifest from the above mention letters that the product was repaired and could be collected on 29/04/2006.  However, the complainant failed to accept the rectified camera.

As a matter of fact, the complainant has visited OP centre on 2/03/2006 and was informed that it would take some more time for the part to be replaced.  The complainant instead of waiting for the replacement of the part, filed a complaint on 14/03/2006.  Even after the camera was rectified within 3 months at, the complainant instead of taking the repaired camera kept on demanding refund.

The complainant has alleged that he has purchased a new camera as his work was suffering.  However, no invoice has been placed towards the purchase of a new camera.

It is appears that the complainant after using the camera for 6 months, wanted the refund of the price of the camera, however, this would amount to unjust enrichment at the cost of OP.  The Consumer Protection Act provides for replacement or refund.  As OP has rectified the camera and replaced the defective part free of cost, and extended warranty no deficiency can be imputed on OP.  Hence the complaint has dismissed.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(RITU GARODIA)                                                                            (A.S YADAV)

    MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT