Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

cc/29/2016

Thierry Damilano - Complainant(s)

Versus

Systronics India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mohammed Fayaz Ali

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.02.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 28^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.29/2016

 

 

Thierry Damilano,

17 Rue Marengo,

72000 Le Mans, France.

 

 

                                                                                   ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

M/s. Systronics (India) Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

Telerad Division,

146/8, II Floor, Millennium Tower,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Chennai – 600 029.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 09.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. Mohammed Fayza Ali

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M.Ranganathan

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the repair cost, new camera cost and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is an adventure photographer and travels all around the world. He was organizing Royal Enfield motor bike tours though out India.  The complainant entrusted his Sony camera with the opposite party on 24.12.2010 for water damage. Despite lapse of three months the opposite party could not repair the camera. After replacing five boards and finally handed over the camera at New Delhi on 19.02.2011. The repair charges of Rs.1,67,722/- was paid to the opposite party.

          2. Few hours before his departure to Paris, the complainant noticed few screws were missing in the camera and immediately the complainant sent a mail on the same day on 19.02.2011 with a picture of camera. After reaching Paris the complainant handed over his camera to Sony Service Centre M/s Loca Images in Paris and he was informed that the camera was not at all put back together and few parts were missing. The opposite party also admitted the missing screws and HDMI Plug etc. On 06.07.2011 the opposite party requested to return the camera and also agreed to refund the money paid to him.

 

          3. The opposite party is now in possession of the five faulty boards which were replaced by the opposite party and have failed to refund the cost as assured by them. The complainant paid the full amount for the cost of the board. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party the complainant lost one assignment and he had to purchase a new camera. Despite several emails and personal visits to the opposite party, they did not refund the cost incurred for servicing the camera. On 15.04.2015 the opposite party agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- for the four boards while disputing the originality of the DPR Board. The complainant agreed to receive the aforesaid amount without prejudice to his rights to claim the remaining amount and also provided the local  bank account details. The opposite party failed to pay the agreed amount on one pretext or the other falsely stating that the amount cannot be refunded to the claimant.

          4. The opposite party received the five boards from the complainant on 03.02.2012 and even after nearly four years the opposite party refused to refund the cost as agreed. The opposite party on 15.04.2015 agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- but however the opposite party has once again failed to refund the said amount. Hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service and the complainant filed this complaint to refund the repair cost, new camera cost and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the complaint. 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant camera was totally damaged by salty water and hence the opposite party informed the complainant that the repair was at his risk and he cannot guarantee the performance after repair. Further the repair also would take more time, since it requires more time to study the condition of the camera and performance. The complainant agreed for such risk and hence the opposite party under taken the repair.

          6. The opposite party had completely replaced the damaged boards, procuring the spares from Sony and working condition was restored.  The complainant at his request received the camera at Delhi on 19.02.2011 in working condition without any protest. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 17.02.2011, another sum of Rs.1,19,250/- on 18.01.2011 from Siplec International Limited, Chennai and also paid another sum of Rs.48,472/- on 19.02.2011 at the time of delivery of the camera at Delhi. Thus a total sum of Rs.1,67,722/- was paid to the opposite party for repairing the camera. The opposite party raised invoice on 28.03.2011 for Rs.1,73,111/- in the name of the complainant.

          7. The opposite party denies that M/s Loca Images informed the complainant that the camera was not assembled in working condition. The other averments in the complaint are denied. This opposite party accepted to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,645/- and the complainant has to return the replaced spares.  The other amounts paid on his behalf will not be refunded to him. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and only as a gesture and the complainant as a foreigner agreed to refund the aforesaid amount. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

 

9. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant is an adventure photographer and travels all around the world and he was organizing Royal Enfield motor bike tours throughout India and   he entrusted his Sony camera with the opposite party on 24.12.2010 for water damage  with the opposite party  for repair  and the complainant  paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 18.01.2011 under Ex.B2, another sum of Rs.94,250/-  on 17.02.2011 through  Siplec International Limited, Chennai and also paid another sum of Rs.48,472/- on 19.02.2011 at the time of delivery of the camera at Delhi and thus a total sum of Rs.1,67,722/- was paid to the opposite party for repairing the camera and after replacing five boards and finally they handed over the camera at New Delhi on 19.02.2011.

           10. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that a few hours before his departure to Paris, he noticed few screws were missing in the camera and immediately the complainant sent Ex.A2  mail on the same day on 19.02.2011 and the opposite party also admitted the missing screws and HDMI Plug etc., and  on  06.07.2011 the opposite party sent Ex.A6 mail  requesting to return the camera to complete the job and further the opposite party himself admitted in Ex.A7 mail that the camera serviced by our Chennai Office is not functioning properly  and agreed to return the money paid by the complainant and also arranged to return the spare parts replaced and further the opposite party  specifically  agreed to refund the repair charges under Ex.A9 and however inspite of several request through mail the opposite party has not refunded the amount hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          11. The opposite party would contend that no opportunity was given to him for second time to repair the product and further at the time of taking the camera for repair, the opposite party informed that it would be difficult to repair in full form and further only as a gesture this opposite party agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,645/- and however, as required, the complainant has not furnished the local bank account to credit the amount and therefore the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complainant with costs.

          12. As requested by the opposite party, the complainant returned the replaced materials and that was also acknowledged by the opposite party in Ex.B11 Sony’s Invoice. Mr.R.R.Patel of Sony Company sent Ex.A7 mail dated 19.07.2011 to the complainant in which specifically stated that the camera serviced by our Chennai Office is not functioning properly and also we will return the money charged for the service. The above statement of Mr.R.R.Patel and the complainant evidence proves that the camera serviced by the opposite party has not been properly done and therefore the opposite party provided only deficient service to the complainant.

          13. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,67,722/- to the opposite party for repair charges. One of the spare was not returned by the complainant. The complainant himself in his mail  Ex.B13 dated to the opposite party  that  atleast refund minus the amount of the main board and the complainant sent another email Ex.B14 that after deducting the cost of the spare DPR – 291 and he is ready to settle for  a sum of Rs.1,05,645/- to him, if refunded to him. The opposite party also agreed to refund the said sum in his mail Ex.A9. The opposite party wrote Ex.A10 mail requiring the complainant to provide local bank account. Accordingly the complainant also provided his local bank account no. in Ex.A11. Even after furnishing such local bank account number the opposite party failed to deposit the agreed refund amount of Rs.1,05,645/- to the complainant.  Therefore for the forgoing discussions, it is held that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not repairing the product properly and also failed to refund the agreed amount of  Rs.1,05,645/-.

14. POINT NO:2

          The opposite party committed deficiency in service in not refunding the amount of Rs.1,05,645/- to the complainant. Hence the opposite party can be directed to refund the said sum of Rs. 1,05,645/- to the complainant. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,73,225/- towards cost of the new camera. It is the case of the complainant that, due to faulty repair of the opposite party, he had purchased a new camera for his profession and hence he is entitled for the new camera cost. The complainant himself entrusted the camera for repair due to water damage. The complainant himself is having the old camera. The complainant being the adventure photographer and for his profession he has purchased the camera and therefore he is not entitled for the claim cost of the new camera. The complainant also claimed compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.20,000/-, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,645/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand six hundred and forty five  only) towards the repair charges  to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty  thousand only) towards compensation for  deficiency in service and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.03.2011                   Invoice

 

Ex.A2 dated 19.02.2011                   Email from complainant to opposite party with

                                                     pictures of camera

 

Ex.A3 dated 25.02.2011                   Reply by the opposite party admitting the liability

 

Ex.A4 dated 12.03.2011                   Invoice of loca images

 

Ex.A5 dated 01.07.2011                   Service Report of Loca Image #19498 along with

                                                    Translation

 

Ex.A6 dated 06.07.2011                   Email from opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A7 dated 19.07.2011                   Email from opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A8 dated 22.05.2012                   Certificate issued by Loca Images, paris together

                                                    with translation

 

Ex.A9 dated 15.04.2015                   Email from opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A10 dated 04.11.2015                 Email from opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A11 dated 12.11.2015                 Email from complainant to opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 24.12.2010                   Delivery Challan issued by opposite party to

                                                    complainant

 

Ex.B2 dated 18.01.2011                   Receipt issued by opposite party infavour of Siplec

                                                    International Ltd.,

 

Ex.B3 dated 16.02.2011                   Invoice – infavour of Siplec International Ltd.,

 

Ex.B4 dated 17.02.2011                   Receipt issued by opposite party infavour of Siplec

                                                    International Ltd.,

 

Ex.B5 dated 02.02.2011                   Sony’s invoice infavour of opposite party

 

Ex.B6 dated 17.02.2011                   Email from opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.B7 dated 18.02.2011                   Email form opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.B8 dated 18.02.2011                   Delivery challan issued by opposite party to

                                                    complainant

 

Ex.B9 dated 21.02.2011                   Cash Bill infavour of complaint by opposite

                                                    party’s Delhi branch office

 

Ex.B10 dated NIL                             opposite party’s email to complaint about packing

 

Ex.B11 dated 26.03.2011                 Son’s Invoice to opposite party

 

Ex.B12 dated 08.07.2011                 e-mail from complainant to opposite party

 

Ex.B13 dated 16.01.2013                 Email from complainant to opposite party

 

Ex.B14 dated 24.01.2013                 Email form complainant to opposite party

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT