BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.94 of 2015

Date of Instt. 11.03.2015

Date of Decision :06.08.2015

Amandeep Singh aged about 28 years son of Nirmaljit Singh R/o Mahalla Pakhiwala, P.O.Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Prem Narain & Co., Sony Centre, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Director/Proprietor/Partner.

2. Sigma Marketing (Service), Sony Authorized Service Centre, 178, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar-144001 through its Manager/ Authorized Person.

3. Sony India Pvt Ltd, Registered Office:- A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director/Manager/Concerned person.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SS Rajpal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manoj Dhamija Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 5.1.2013, the complainant purchased one camera from opposite party No.1 having model No.SLT-A65VK E 32, Serial No.248842 manufactured by opposite party No.3 from the showroom of opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice No.RTL/101703 for Rs.52,000/-. Opposite party No.1 also issued warranty card for the above said camera and it was told to the complainant by the concerned authorized person of opposite party No.1 that camera was having warranty for three years from the date of purchase and the same was also mentioned on the warranty service coupon issued by opposite party No.1. Complainant is a professional photographer and the camera was purchased to be used by him in his profession for clicking photographs in marriages, functions, parties etc in which complainant was engaged as a photographer. Complainant is earning his livelihood by working as a professional photographer and he is not having any other source of income. The camera abruptly stopped functioning on 1.3.2014 when complainant was shooting photographs of Lakhwinder Singh son of Jit Singh R/o Sultanpur Lodhi at Kali Baiyen at Sultanpur Lodhi. The matter was immediately reported to opposite party No.1 and as per their advice the defective camera was handed over in service centre i.e opposite party No.2 vide job sheet No.J40460807 on 3.3.2014. Complainant also sent an email on 4.3.2014 to official website of opposite party No.2 explaining the defects in the camera and it was stated that the buttons stop working sometime, camera was having low battery life, lens was loose, camera does not focus etc. At the time of handing over the camera at the service centre of opposite party No.2 it was told by the authorized person on behalf of opposite party No.2 that camera would be repaired within 20 days but despite visiting the service centre number of times and calling on the customer care number, the camera was not returned to the complainant within 20 days. On enquiry it was told that camera was sent to Delhi for repair and after 20 days it was told that it will take more time as battery was not sent alongwith camera to Delhi for repair. The camera was returned back to the complainant by opposite party No.2 after rectification in the end of month of May 2014 i.e more than two and a half months after submitting the same for repair. At that time it was assured by the concerned person on behalf of opposite party No.2 that no problem would come in future with the camera and believing them complainant took the camera. The camera was put to use but on 11.10.2014, after running hardly for five months, the camera once again totally failed. The complainant immediately reported the matter to opposite party No.3 through an email on 12.10.2014. Complainant received response through an email from opposite party No.3 to contact nearby authorized service centre to provide necessary service. Complainant again deposited the camera on 16.10.2014 vide job sheet No.J42434389 for repairing the same to opposite party No.2. There was inordinate delay in rectifying the defect by opposite party No.2. Annoyed with the product purchased from the opposite party No.1 and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3, complainant had to suffer mental agony and loss in business. Complainant sent an email to opposite party No.3 on 18.10.2014 explaining inconvenience suffered by him and requested for change of camera or to refund the money but no response was given by opposite party No.3. Complainant again sent an email on 25.10.2014 to opposite party No.3 to change the camera or to refund the money by taking a quick decision as wedding session was going on and complainant had to give up number of functions for which he was approached to capture photographs. Even complainant had to return money to some of the customers from whom complainant had taken advance for capturing photographs at functions. Complainant again sent a reminder through an email to opposite party No.3 on 28.10.2014 asking about the status of his complaint. On 3.11.2014, complainant received a telephonic call from the office of opposite party No.2 that camera will be ready within 3-4 days. Complainant told the concerned person either to change the piece or to refund the money. Complainant also sent an email in this regard to opposite party No.3 on the same day. Complainant received an email from opposite party No.3 on 4.11.2014 and it was stated that matter was referred to regional office and assurance was given that matter would be resolved very shortly and even regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. But no further effective action was taken by opposite parties No.2 & 3. Complainant again sent an email to opposite party No.3 on 11.11.2014. On 17.11.2014, complainant sent a reminder/legal notice through email to opposite party No.3 to refund the money paid for the camera alongwith interest otherwise he will file complaint before the consumer forum. On 2.12.2014 opposite party No.3 replied through an email whereby it was stated that control switch block of the camera needs to be replaced for the satisfactory working of the product and they had done the necessary and the camera is now properly working and further stated to collect the same from opposite party No.2. On 4.12.2014 at the time of handing over the camera it was told by the concerned person on behalf of opposite party No.2 that no problem would come in future and on the assurance given by concerned person of opposite party No.2, complainant took the camera. Complainant went to Calcutta to attend marriage in the relation of his sister-in-law(bhabhi) and complainant also took camera with him. On 16.12.2014, when complainant was attending the marriage at Calcutta, the camera again stopped working suddenly. Complainant could not capture the photographs of the functions at Calcutta of his relation. Complainant went to number of places at Calcutta alongwith his family members but he could not click photographs as his camera was not working. Complainant sent an email to opposite party No.3 on 17.12.2014 from Calcutta and also sent video of the camera which was captured by mobile by the complainant. In response opposite party No.3 replied through an email on 17.12.2014 whereby they regretted for the inconvenience suffered by complainant. Complainant again sent email to opposite party No.3 asking about the repair done to camera last time. In response opposite party No.3 sent an email on 21.12.2014 to contact any nearby Sony authorized service centre. Complainant cancelled his trip in between in order to return the camera to opposite party No.2 as early as possible and to arrange some new camera in order to avoid further loss to his profession. Complainant had to purchase ticket in Tatkal from Hawrah to New Delhi railway station on 25.12.2014 for 26.12.2014. Complainant on returning back from Calcutta deposited the camera with opposite party No.2 vide job sheet No.J50047554 on 6.1.2015 and it was clearly told by complainant that he wants his money back with interest and he is not going to take camera back. Complainant sent an email to opposite party No.3 whereby he clearly asked to refund the money. In response opposite party No.3 sent an email to complainant, whereby they stated that their support team will look into the matter. But till date complainant has not got any response from opposite parties No.2 & 3. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund him entire price of the camera alongwith interest. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objection that the complainant is using camera for commercial purpose. As per admission of the complainant all after sales services are being provided to him, the parties do not have a contract for consequential damages etc. They further pleaded that camera is sensitive device and requires a mature and professional person to handle the same in a technically sound manner. The complainant is a harsh user of the device and is absolutely negligent and careless in his handling. Due to his harsh usage the device is developing a snag time and again. It is further clarified that the complainant has failed to set up a case in his favour. The complainant has failed to follow the list of do's and don'ts from the precaution and manual and is harming the device by repeated faulty use. It is not the case of the complainant that he has done a course of photography or a professional and technical course in handling the camera. The complainant is a self proclaimed photographer who has no technical knowledge of using the device. It is submitted that a perusal of the job sheets would reveal that the problems in the camera are user induced and have nothing to do with the opposite parties. It is submitted that free of cost repairs have been provided to the complainant alongwith change and replacement of parts at the cost of the opposite parties. The complainant has already been informed that he shall be continued to be provided with the best after sales services. The product is still in warranty and the opposite parties are ready to continue to provide after sales services. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CG alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copy of document Ex.OPW1/1and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the camera and same was having three years warranty from the date of purchase. Ex.C2 is warranty card and Ex.C1 is retail invoice vide which the complainant purchased the camera for Rs.52,000/- from opposite party No.1. According to the complainant after purchase, the camera developed defects repeatedly and same was deposited with service centre vide job sheets but they failed to rectify the defect. Counsel for the complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in the camera and complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the camera and also compensation. He further contended that complainant is using the camera to earn livelihood by way of self employment and is to be treated as consumer. In support of his above contentions he has relied upon Hindustan Motors Ltd Vs Narayan Pundalik Tamankar & Ors, I (1996) CPJ 313 (NC) and Kalyan Kumar Sen Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd, I (1997) CPJ 546. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.

7. The authority of Hindustan Motor Limited (Supra) is on its own facts and not attracted in this case. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that he is professional photographer and earn livelihood by working as a professional photographer and is not having any other source of income. So in this view of the matter, the complainant is to be treated as consumer. However, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the camera. He has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the camera. Moreover from the job sheets issued by the service centre, it is evident that on all the three occasions when the camera was submitted with the service centre, there was same defect i.e button not working. Ex.C3 is job sheet dated 3.3.2014 and in the column of customer complaint button not working is mentioned. Similarly in job sheet dated 16.10.2014 Ex.C4 customer complaint is mentioned as sometime penal switch not working. In the job sheet dated 6.1.2015 Ex.C6 same problem is again mentioned. So on the basis of job sheets at the most it can not be said that there was problem in the penal switch. It can be rectified by replacing penal switch or otherwise by repair. From the contents of the complaint, it is clear that whenever the complainant deposited camera with the service centre the solution was provided to him. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the camera was put to use but on 11.10.2014 after running hardly for five months the camera once again totally failed. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the camera then it would not have worked properly for five months. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that he purchased the camera on 5.1.2013 and then in para 4 of the complaint he has mentioned that the camera abruptly stopped functioning on 1.3.2014.So it means that camera worked properly for about one year and two months. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the camera then it would not have worked properly for such a long period. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties stated at bar that they are ready to rectify the defect in the camera, if any and to change the defective part, if any. During the warranty period, the liability of the manufacturer is to repair the product satisfactorily or to replace the defective part unless there is any manufacturing defect in the product. The complainant has demanded indirect or consequential damages. In the present proceedings, we are to give compensation only if there is any deficiency in service or defect in the product and not consequential damages.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to repair the camera of the complainant free of any charges and if there is any defect in any part of the camera then to replace it within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.08.2015 Member Member President