O R D E R
SHAHINA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant’s son namely Anupam got a Sony camera model No.OD-W-1370/Red Sr. No.139958 of O.Ps as gift from his cousin which was purchased from USA and the price of the same is approximately Rs.12,000/- in Indian Currency. It is alleged that the shutter of the said camera was not working properly and complainant’s son approached Hi-End Solutions i.e. O.P-2 which was the authorized service center of the Sony company, the service center of Sony issued a job sheet dated 08.06.2014 in this regard. It is further alleged that the O.P-2 told the complainant that they will convey message to him as and when the camera got repaired. It is alleged that about one month later complainant visited the office of the service center of Sony Company and came to know that the service center was closed down some time back. It is further alleged on enquiry complainant found that another service center F1 Info. Solutions & Service Private Ltd. was opened in the same area by the Sony Company and the entire Job work of the old service center was transferred to the new service center by the Sony Company. It is alleged that on enquiries about her camera the new service center refused having received her camera from Hi- End Solutions of O.P-2. It is further alleged that complainant’s husband Mr. Manoj Sharma followed up with one Mr. Rajnish Chauhan, works-in- charge at F1 Solutions, Mr. Amrinder Chawla, Sony India and Mr. Sunil Gautam, owner of the Hi-End Solutions. It is alleged that O.Ps informed that during the process of closure of service center they might have kept the camera in some containers and, therefore, need some time to trace it. It is further alleged that O.Ps informed the complainant that the camera is not traceable as it has been lost in transition. It is further alleged that from time to time various complaints and email were sent by the complainant to the O.Ps. It is alleged that after that one Mr. Sunil Gautam from Hi-End Solutions proposed to replace the complainant camera with the Model No.DSC-H200. It is further alleged that complainant agreed to the proposal and requested him to deliver the same. It is alleged that A.R. of the O.Ps came to complainant house to deliver the camera and after delivery of the camera complainant found that the camera was an old used camera with the bill was of latest date from Sony seconds showroom and the camera was without lance cover and there were few scratches on its body also. It is further alleged that there was no guarantee card with the product whereas the same was assured to the complainant. It is alleged that complainant immediately returned the camera. It is alleged that since then they have not reverted back to complainant and many emails and telephonic calls have fallen on deaf ears. It is alleged that nearly four months had lapsed since complainant deposited her camera for repair and to our utter misery complainant have yet not provided any solution to the problem. On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to refund the price of camera and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.Ps appeared and filed their respective written statements. In its written statement, OP No.1 has alleged that the complainant approached the O.P-2 for repairing the subject camera. It has been pleaded that the admitted case of the complainant is that the camera was deposited with the O.P-2 with a complaint that the shutter of the camera was not working. It is alleged that it is the case of the complainant that when the complainant contacted F1 Solutions for her camera she was informed that they will search her camera and inform her. It is further alleged that the answering O.P has nothing to do with the loss of the camera. On the other hand, in its written statement of O.P-2 has alleged that the answering O.P had never collected the camera which is the subject matter of the present complaint as alleged. Also it had no occasion to collect the same as alleged inasmuch as it had already surrendered its agency to the O.P-1 on 05.06.2014 and it is the case of the complainant as per its own averments that complainant had allegedly deposited the camera in question on 08.06.2014. It is further alleged that the answering O.P had stopped taking the complaints from the customers after 05.06.2014 as it had already surrendered the same being unviable for him to continue the same. It is alleged that the defective camera of the complainant was received by the O.P-1 through its employee and further it was sent for the repair to another service center namely F1 Info. Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. which is another service center of the O.P-1 in the same area as that of the answering O.P. It is further alleged that if any loss has occurred to the complainant as alleged then it is the O.P-1 who is responsible for the same as O.P-1 had received the camera of the complainant and sent it to above said service center for the repair. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complainant. On the other hand O.P-1 has filed affidavit of Mrs. Meena Bose, Executive and Sh. Sunil Gautam, Partner has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the O.P-2 reiterating all the facts as alleged in the written statements. Parties have also filed their written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties. The complainant in support of his case has filed copy of jobsheet dated 08.06.2014 vide which the camera was entrusted to O.P-2 for repairs. The Jobsheet shows that O.P-2 was the authorized service center of O.P-1. The complainant has also filed copies of various emails addressed to OP-1&2. It is not disputed that the camera was entrusted to the O.Ps for repairs. It is also not disputed that the same has not been returned to the complainant by the O.Ps. In the reply filed by O.P-1 it has denied entrustment of the camera to it. On the other hand O.P-2 in its reply has pleaded that as it had surrendered the agency on 05.06.2014 after which a regular employee of O.P-1 was attending complaints and collected the electronics items from the customers. It is however strange that the jobsheet was issued on the letter head of O.P-2. The complainant has stated the cost of the camera at Rs.12,000/- which has not been denied by both the O.Ps.
5. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that both the O.Ps were deficient in service. Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the loss occurred to the complainant. Accordingly both the O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- as cost of the camera. Both the O.Ps are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing tension, harassment and inconvenience which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
