Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/511

M/S CANON INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH.P.B - Opp.Party(s)

JAIDEEP.G.NAIR

12 May 2016

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.511/13

JUDGMENT DATED:12.05.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd.,

D.179, Okhla Industrial Area,                                           : APPELLANT

Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Rajesh Thomas)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Rajesh P.B,

Paramatt House,

Vadacode P.O,

Kangarapady,

Kochi-682 021.

 

     2.    Bhavans Studio & Colour Lab,

M.G.Road, Ernakulam,                                                      : RESPONDENTS

Kochi-682 035.

 

3. Camera Scan,

Canon Service Franchise,

Pulinattu Building,

Opp. Shipyard,

Ravipuram-682 015.

 

JUDGMENT 

JUSTICE SHRI.  P.Q. BARKATH  ALI,  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.125/12 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated October 31, 2012 directing the 1^st opposite party to replace the disputed camera of the complainant with an upgraded one or in the alternative to refund the price of the camera to the complainant.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

The complainant received a Canon Camera Power Shot Digital as a wedding present in January 2011.  It became defective in December 2011.  Complainant handed over the same to the 3^rd opposite party on December 26, 2011.  They demanded repair charge of Rs.2,300/- on the ground that camera has become defunct due to water infiltration.  It has not been exposed to water, rain or mist and the fault is due to some manufacturing defect.  The camera was in the custody of the service centre from December 26, 2011 onwards and the defect occurred within the warranty period.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint to replace the old camera with a new one or to repair the existing camera free of cost and a compensation of Rs.1000/-.

3.      First opposite party is Canon India Private Limited, New Delhi represented by its Managing Director.  Second opposite party is the Bhavans Studio & Colour Lab, Ernakulam and 3^rd opposite party is the Camera Scan, Canon Service Franchise, Kochi.  Only the first opposite party contested the matter before the Forum.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  It is admitted that complainant entrusted the camera to the 3^rd opposite party for repairing.  On inspection it was found that water entered in the camera and caused damage.  As per the terms and conditions the benefit of warranty was not available to the customer in case there is any mal functioning in the product which has resulted from the exposure to dirt, sand, water, fire and/or shock.  The part of the camera required to be replaced was not available with the first opposite party.  Therefore first opposite party offered to provide the complainant a new camera PS A 3200 IS which is an upgraded model on payment of the repair estimate of Rs.2367/- by the complainant.  But complainant was not prepared for the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant appeared in person before the Forum and produced Exts.A1 to A3 and on the side of the first opposite party Exts.B1 to B4 were marked.   On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the first opposite party to replace the camera of the complainant with a new one or to refund Rs.6995/- on the price of the disputed camera.  First opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard the counsel for the appellant and the complainant who appeared in person. 

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      When the appeal came up for hearing counsel for the appellant submitted that first opposite party is prepared to replace the camera of the complainant with a new upgraded model provided, complainant pays Rs.2367/- being the repair charges of the old camera.  It is seen from Ext.A1 the copy of the service call issued by the 3^rd opposite party that even at that time there was water inside the camera which clearly shows that the defect was caused due to the water entering the camera which probabilises the case of the first opposite party that complainant would have mishandled the camera in question.  Under these circumstances he is bound to pay the repair charges to the first opposite party.

 

8.      There is another aspect in this case.  The part of the camera to be replaced was not available with the first opposite party and they have offered to replace the old camera with a new one.  Under these circumstances we are of the view that the appellant shall replace the camera of the complainant with an upgraded model provided, complainant pays Rs.2367/- being the repair charges.  The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.5000/- in this appeal.

In the result appeal is allowed in part as found above.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI :  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.