DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Parganas, BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 597/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
31.10.2014 19.11.2014 06.04.2015
COMPLAINANT = Vs. = OPPOSITE PARTIES
Smt. Chhanda Das, 1. The Manager/Proprietor
W/o Subrata Kumar Mistri, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Sailen Moulick Sarani, 30, Jessore Rd, Barasat,
PO- Hridaypur, PS- Barasat, Pin- 700124.
Pin- 700127.
2. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd.
Kolkata Branch Office:
PS Plus Building, 1st Floor,
238A, AJC Bose Rd.
Kolkata- 700020.
Advocate for Complainant : Sri Madhu Sudan Das.
Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1 : Sri Bibhas Mondal.
Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2 : In person.
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Bandana Roy - - - - - - - - - President
:- Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty - - - Member
J U D G E M E N T
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant, for redressal arising out of the consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In laconic, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Nikon S 6800 Digital Camera, from the Opposite Party, on 13.08.2014, for Rs. 9,800/- only, vide Invoice No. BS/SA/1415/04243, dated 13.08.2014.
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 2/-
C. C. Case No. 597/2014
- :: 2 :: -
After two days from purchasing the said Nikon S 6800 Digital Camera, the operational lens of the same did not come outs, and the Complainant found the said camera as a defective one, for which the Complainant asked to the Opposite Parties on 14.08.2014 to replace the same, but the Opposite party No. 1 sent the said camera for repairing to the Opposite Party No. 2 the Opposite Party No. 2 repaired the said camera and handed over the same to the Complainant on 27.08.2014. But after repairing the same, the said Nicon S 6800 Digital Camera further disturbed and the Complainant demanded the refund of the price amount from the Opposite Party No. 1, but the Opposite Parties did not paid any heed.
Ultimately the Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Consumer Affair Dept. and the Authority asked the Opposite Parties to appear before them on 22.10.2014, but the Opposite Parties did not turn up. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has to file the instant case seeking redressal by refund of the total cost price of the said Nikon S 6800 Digital Camera.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying each and every allegation made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action, the case is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties and is not maintainable either in fact or in law and is totally false.
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 1, in terse, is that, the Complainant purchased a Nikon S 6800 Digital Camera upon payment of the cost of the same, after being satisfied with the demonstration, as the Opposite Party No. 1 is only the retailer and not the manufacturer and being the seller of the electronics products the Opposite Party No. 1 only sells the products after proper demonstration and after satisfaction of the customer and provides warranty to the customers. The Opposite Party No. 1 is not liable for any alleged defects or fault of the said cameras and only the manufacturer is liable for the same. After receiving the complaint from the Complainant the Opposite Party No. 1 immediately refer the same to the Opposite Party No. 2 attained the sais complaint and repaired the said Digital Camera upto the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 acted diligently and no allegation was raised by the Complainant against them, for which the Opposite Party No. 1 denied any deficiency and/or negligence in rendering the service towards the complainant. Thus, the Opposite Party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 3/-
C. C. Case No. 597/2014
- :: 3 :: -
The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party No. 2, in crispy, is that, this Opposite Party is a company importing Official Nikon Imaging Products. The Complainant had purchased a Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera, being serial No. 11000586 on 13.08.2014, from the Opposite Party No. 1, the Company’s authorized distributor. After purchasing the said camera, when the Complainant informed regarding the lens problem of such Camera, the same was booked for repair and the said camera was returned to the Complainant after repairing on 28.08.2014, which was received by the Complainant after inspection the same. Thereafter without any prior intimation the Complainant lodged a complainant before the Consumer Affair Dept. but the said was not attained by this Opposite Party No. 2 due to not received the copy of the same in time.
Moreover, this Opposite Party No. 2 already had offered the Complainant to replace the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera with a new one, but the Complainant ignoring the same filed the instant case. Thus, the Opposite Party No. 2 denied any deficiency and/or negligence in rendering the service towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for Consideration :-
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Complainant is entitled to get the refund of the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera purchased by her or not.
In coming into conclusion regarding the present dispute we have gone through the Complaint and Written Version and also critically appreciated the material documents on record and we have gathered that admittedly Complainant is a consumer under both the Opposite Parties by purchasing a Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera from the Opposite Party No. 1, for which undisputedly the Complainant had already paid a sum Rs. 9,800/- only, to the Opposite Party No. 1 on 13.08.2014, being Invoice No. BS/SA/1415/04243.
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 4/-
C. C. Case No. 597/2014
- :: 4 :: -
Manifestly, the record reveals that admittedly the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera was purchased on 13.08.2014 and the same was started lens problem from 14.08.2014, i.e. just after next day of the said purchased and the Opposite Party No. 2 returned the said camera to the Complainant after repairing the same on 28.08.2014 i.e. just after 15 days from the date of purchasing, which proved that the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera, purchased by the Complainant had/has an inherent manufacturing defect in its lens.
The Complainant alleged that the said camera was again started problem just after a few days of such repairing, for which the Complainant demanded for refund of the cost price.
But, the fact remains that, the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera was started problem just nest day of purchase and further had disturbed after getting the same repaired for which being a bonafide consumer, the depression or disparity of the Complainant is quite normal for which he did not want the further repairing of his said Nikon Camera.
Undisputedly, the Opposite Party No. 1 is the Dealer/ authorized Seller of the Opposite Party No. 2, and the Opposite party No. 1 sited a ruling 2012(3) CPR 544 (NC), where it is clearly stated by the Hon’ble National Commission that Dealer could not be held liable unless it was established that relationship between manufacturer and dealer under relevant agreement was that of ‘principal to Principal’ and relying upon this decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, unanimously the Forum hold that the Opposite Party had/has no liability towards the Complainant.
Moreover, the materials on record reveals that in fact the Opposite party No. 2 admitting their fault and liability towards the Complainant is ready and willing to replace the said defective Nikon Camera, for which the Opposite Party No. 2 is still liable to replace the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera with a new one of same model.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved her case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 5/-
C. C. Case No. 597/2014
- :: 5 :: -
O R D E R
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- only payable by the Opposite party No. 2 to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to replace the said Nikon COOLPIX S6800 Camera with a new one of same model within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party No. 2 is further directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party No. 2 within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Party No. 2 shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party No. 2 in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Written & Typed by me.
