Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order :01.06.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. Price of Camera : Rs. 10,504.00
2. Loss on account of mental anxiety and harassment : Rs. 50,000.00
3. Miscellaneous Expenses : 11,000.00
4. Total : 71,500.00

2. Brief facts of the case which to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant purchased a Canon camera bearing Model No. PSA 530 Body serial no. 29422092 – 07 on 15.09.2007 from its dealer party no. 2 in Rs. 10,504/- ( ten thousand five hundred four only ) for which an warranty card of two years from the date of its purchase was given to the complainant.
2. The flash light of the aforesaid Camera was not functioning so, the complainant visited to its customer care centre at Patna on 10.08.2009 and he made complain regarding flash of the camera and thereafter the manager asked him to deposit the camera for rectification and given a receipt, thereof with a remark that problem will be rectified by man of service centre.
3. The complainant deposited the aforesaid camera to the service centre within warranty period which also appears from Annexure – 2 of this complaint petition, but no remarks regarding any other defects was given by the Engineer of the service centre.
4. Thereafter as per knowledge of the complaint the aforesaid camera was sent to Kolkatta service centre by the opposite party no. 1.
5. On 07.12.2009 the Kolkatta Service Centre sent a mail to Cannon Service Centre, Patna with a remark that please find the attachment same is locally and advice the complainant to deposit Rs. 2295.00/- ( two thousand two hundred ninety five only ) for rectification of defects of the aforesaid camera.
6. Camera is / was within warranty period on the date which it was deposited and the Engineer of the customer care centre not reported that the camera was locally tempered.
7. It is also relevant to mention here that no one can visit to any local mechanical for rectification of the defect of goods when the goods is within the warranty period.
8. The complainant further asserts that he never visited before any local mechanical for rectification of the defect of the aforesaid camera because it is within the guarantee period.
9. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant visited from pillar to the post for rectification of defect of the said camera, but of no avail.
10. Under the facts and circumstances stated above it is crystal clear that the service centre after keeping the camera of the complaint about four months and after expiry of warranty sent a mail to the Patna Customer care centre that the camera is locally tampered which cannot be accepted.

3. Submission of the Opposite Party no. 3 are as follows as per his written statement :-

1. The complainant purchased the camera in question after his complete satisfaction with the specification and condition of the same from the opposite party no. 2. That admittedly there was no complaint of whatsoever nature at the time of purchase of the camera in question as the same was never alleged by the complainant and the first alleged complaint was made only on 10.08.2009 i.e. after 1 year 10 months 25 days of its purchase i.e. 15.09.2007, and this fact evidently establishes that the camera in question was / is not having any manufacturing defect or any other alleged defect. That the complainant has not attached / expert opinion report, confirming the manufacturing defect in the said camera and this fact also evidently establishes that the camera in question was / is not having any manufacturing defect or any other alleged defect.
2. The Cannon camera, traded by the Answering opposite party are sophisticated device and which are repaired by the master service centre, of Cannon India Private Limited situated at various locations. That the camera in question was received by Cannon care centre, ( a third party organization appointed by the answering opposite party for collecting the cameras for sending the same to master service centre for the ease of the customer ) for sending it to the master service centre at Calcutta for attending to the alleged complaint. That the camera in question was never opened by Cannon care centre as they are not authorized to open the cameras, hence there is no question for mentioning any other defect in the customer service report by the cannon care centre, and further the said report also mentioned the said facts. In facts there were scratches upon the body of the camera in question, and which was initially mentioned in the said job sheet but the complainant made hue and cry upon the same, and the authorized person of Cannon care centre cut the said remarks from the said job sheet.
3. That upon inspection of the camera in question at master service centre Kolkatta, it was found that the said camera was opened by some untrained person and its EPC connector was found to be tampered, and in fact wires were also found to be damaged. That as per terms and conditions of warranty, period to the complainant on the purchase of the camera in question, the warranty would be rendered null and void if the camera in question was modified, repaired, maintained, dissembled and / or by a party not authorized by the opposite party no. 3.
4. As the complainant was not entitled to free of coast of the camera in question, he was duly intimated about the same and also was provided an estimate for repair of the camera in question. That the complainant did not give approval for the said estimate and hence the camera in question was not repaired and as such there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party no. 3.
5. The camera in question was deposited with care Cannon care centre, it was never opened there as the Cannon care centre was / is not authorized to do so, hence it was impossible to ascertain the internal tampering on spot until and unless, informed by the complainant himself and which he deliberately conceded from the authorized persons of Cannon care centre.
6. The camera in question is very sophisticated device, and in fact the opposite party no. 3 making sure that the camera in question ought to be repaired by the master service centre, and not by Cannon care centre ( as the Cannon care centre is only authorized for collecting the cameras and selling the same to Master Service centre for the ease of the customers ), and if the same product is being attended by the local technician, then there is every possibility that he may damage the camera in question, as done in the present case, hence the opposite party no. 3 was / is not liable for the same.
7. The camera in question was not repaired as the complainant did not agree for payment for repair charges, and hence there is no deficiency of services on part of the opposite party no. 3. That the opposite party no. 3 is always ready and willing to provide the warranty services subject to its terms and conditions.
8. The complainant has not approached the Hon’ble forum with clean hands and the complaint under reply is devoid of merit and without any cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party no. 3.
9. The subject is based upon false and misconceived allegations of the complainant and further the complainant has deliberately concealed true and correct facts from this Hon’ble forum, and which have a definite bearing upon the outcome of the subject case and by doing so has made false and frivolous allegations against the opposite party no. 3.
10. It si a well settled principle of law that “no one should be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong”. That the present complaint is filed in clear defiance of the above principle of law as the complainant has not given any approval to the opposite party no. 3 for repairing the same on charges, despite being aware of estimate of repair’s charges.
11. The opposite party no. 3 i.e. M/s Cannon India Private Limited is a well – reputed and renowned company, having over the years by sheer dint of hard work and flawless business dealings earned an enviable business reputation. That the opposite party no. 3 takes great pride in its products and related after sales service and the allegations contained in the captioned complaint are not false but also defamatory and the opposite party no. 3 reserves its right to initiate appropriate legal action against the complainant.
12. The complaint of the complainant is a clear and apparent abuse of the process of the law and is aimed at taking undue advantage of an otherwise social beneficial legislation, and is being filed to put pressure upon the opposite party no. 3 for illegal demands of the complainant.

We have perused the materials adduced on behalf of the Parties and have also heard the Parties.

Taking a look at the written statement of the Opposite Party No. 1 it transpires that the complainant had deposited the Camera in question to the Authorized Service Centre ( Opposite Party No. 2 ) much before the expiry of warranty period and the Camera remained with the manufacturing company ( Opposite Party No. 1 ) and surprisingly after a long period of four months the Opposite Party No. 1 sent a reply to the complainant requesting him to pay some amount for repair of defects as the warranty has already expired. Thus it is proved beyond doubts that Opposite Party no. 1 is totally responsible for deficiency in service and his plea that camera has got scratches and while accepting the camera for repair the Service Centre has written the same on the Job Card but it was scratched due to protest by the complainant is not at all convincing.

Accordingly we direct the Opposite Party No. 1 to refund the price of the camera i.e Rs. 10,504.00 ( Rupees ten thousand five hundred and four only ) to the complainant after the old one is returned by the complainant within a period of one month of receipt of this order and money so ordered will be refunded after a month thereafter. If the amount is not refunded within the stipulated period then an interest @ 12% per annum will be paid on the aforesaid amount till it is paid.

Further the opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to pay to the complainant an equal amount of Rs.10,504/- ( Rupees ten thousand five hundred and four only ) by way of compensation and further Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only ) as litigation cost within the aforesaid period.

Thus the instant complaint petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                                  Member                                                President