EX-PARTE O R D E R
PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding defective digital camera sold to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
2) The facts of the case as alleged by the Complainant are as follows –
The Opposite Party is the Managing Director of Prerna Enterprises. The Complainant has purchased a digital camera Olympus SP 570 Sr.No.M-37501127 from the Opposite Party for Rs.22,000/- on 03/05/2008. The Opposite Party did not provide warranty for the said camera. When the Complainant used the camera he found lines appearing in the photographs taken by the said camera. The said defect was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party avoided to correct the same. At last on 19/12/2008 the Complainant gave the camera to Opposite Party for servicing and checking vide Job No.560. The Complainant received the camera back on 29/12/2008. The Complainant was told that the issue was solved. However, actually, the problem was not solved.
3) Again on 07/01/2009 the Complainant was called by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party examined the camera alongwith his technician and both of them told the Complainant that there was no problem with the said camera. When the Complainant demanded a warranty card, it was not given to the Complainant.
4) Then the Complainant gave the said camera to the authorized Olympus Service Centre - Camera Care Centre on 30/01/2009 and told the service centre people to look into the fault of the said camera but not to repair the same. The camera care centre people found that there are lines in the photograph and they are due to faulty shutter block of the camera. They also told the Complainant that Rs.7,500/- will be required to get the fault repaired. The Complainant has attached the quotation for the said repair.
5) The Complainant sent a letter dtd.04/02/2009 stating the above said grievance to the Opposite Party and the Olympus Company but invain.
6) The Complainant has also submitted that, Olympus Company informed him that the Opposite Party is not their authorized dealer and is black listed. The Complainant further averred that the box of the camera had no MRP on it.
7) The Complainant also learnt that Olympus Company given 2 years local warranty and one year worldwide warranty. However, Opposite Party has not given him any type of warranty.
8) The Complainant has finally prayed that the amount of Rs.22,000/- be returned to him alongwith 18 % interest, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.25,000/- for business hour loss etc.
9) The Complainant has attached xerox copies of the following documents –
a) Cash memo dtd.03/05/08 for Rs.22,000/-.
b) Job No.560 dtd.19/12/08.
c) Quotation issued by Camera Care Centre, Olympus dtd.31/01/09.
d) Letter from the Complainant to Opposite Party dtd.03/02/09.
e) Letter from the Complainant to Chairman, Olympus Imaging Corp. dtd.03/02/2009.
f) Postal acknowledgement.
10) The complaint was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party. Inspite of the notice served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party did not remain present before this Forum, nor he filed the written statement. Hence, ex-parte hearing order has been passed against the Opposite Party vide Roznama dtd.02/09/2009.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence wherein he repeated the facts mentioned in his complaint.
11) We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and perused all the documents submitted by the Complainant. Our findings are as follows -
Complainant has purchased a digital camera Olympus SP 570 Sr.No.M-37501127 from the Opposite Party for Rs.22,000/- on 03/05/2008. Though the averments of the Complainant lacks the timing as to when he exactly came to know the defect, it appear from overall averments that the Complainant found out the defect (lines appearing in the photographs taken by the said camera) on/or before 19/12/08. The averment that “After few days after purchasing I notice that the Digital Camera purchased by me is not performing well” appears to be vague. The Complainant has also not produced any document showing that he gave the camera for repair before 19/12/2008 and Olympus Imaging Corp. (Manufacturer of the Camera) gives warranty for a specific period.
12) The Complainant also alleged that the Opposite Party had sold the camera in a sealed box without MRP on the box. But the Complainant has failed to produce the box in evidence to prove this fact. Therefore, this allegation of unfair trade practice does not sustain on the evidential test.
13) The Complainant has produced xerox of job no.560 dtd.19/12/08. It does not bear any name and it could not be ascertain as to who has issued this job paper no.560 dtd.19/12/08. However, the quotation dtd.31/01/09 clearly indicates the defect i.e. lines comes in photograph and the shutter block of the camera is faulty. The repair work would be done for Rs.7,500/-. From the document it is established that on 31/01/09 there was a defect in the camera and the shutter block of the camera was defective requiring repair. The cost of the repair is Rs.7,500/-.
14) From the complaint, it is felt that the Complainant should have been diligent in purchasing an instrument valued at Rs.22,000/- without MRP and without warranty. He should have insisted for the warranty at the time of making payment. Inspite of above said drawbacks in the complaint, in order to meet the ends of justice, it would be just & proper to reimburse the cost of the repair of the camera i.e. Rs.7,500/- to the Complainant and compensation for his mental & physical agony and cost for the complaint. Hence, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.172/2009 is partly allowed.
ii The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.7,500/- (Rs.Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the Complainant
towards the repair charges of Digital Camera Olympus SP 570 Sr.No.M-37501127.
iii Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the
mental and physical agony caused to the Complainant and Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Only) towards the cost of
this complaint.
iv Opposite Party is also directed to comply with this order jointly and/or severally within 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
v Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
