By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to replace camera under warranty condition and extend the warranty period and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a digital camera with the model name Sony Digi Cam W710 with IMEI No.0152017629 from 1st opposite party on 27.03.2013
for a sum of Rs.5,700/-. The product is having warranty for a period of one year. The complainant used the camera with utmost care but within few months of the purchase of the camera it started to show some trouble in working. The complainant entrusted the camera with 1st opposite party for service and it was given after service. Again it started to show working complaints and some times it will automatically switch off. Therefore on 06.01.2014, the complainant had entrusted the camera with the 1st opposite party and it was sent by the 1st opposite party for service. The camera was returned to the complainant stating that since the LCD and main board of the camera is showing rust and those parts cannot be repaired and can only replace and for which the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.4,500/-. The defect of camera occurred within one year. There is no occasion or chance of water entering in to the camera while using it. If there is any rust, it will be due to manufacturing defects and due to sub standard materials. The opposite parties have no right to demand any amount towards replacement and repair. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties and even if opposite party No.1's notice is served to opposite party No.1 on 05.03.2014, opposite party No.1 did not appear before the Forum and filed. Hence opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte. Opposite party No.2 filed version.
4. In the version of opposite party No.2, they stated that as per clause 8 of the warranty terms "this warranty shall not apply to damages caused to the product by accident, lightening,
ingress of water, fire or acts of God, improper ventilation dropping or excessive shock or any external cause beyond sony's control or damage caused due to tampering of the product by an unauthorized agent". In this case the damage is caused to the camera by external causes which is not under warranty. The ingress of liquid into the camera rendered the warranty void. So the repair of camera needs repair charges from the complainant.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 and MO1 is also marked. Opposite party No.2 have no oral evidence and opposite party No.2's documents are marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.A1 is the Retail Invoice for a sum of Rs.5,700/-. Ext.A2 is service estimate. Ext.A3 and A4 are the Service Job Sheets. Ext.A5, the condition of the set is shown as water inside the camera LCD and main board fully rusted. Ext.B2 is the photocopy of warranty card. The case of the complainant is that the damage to the camera is due to manufacturing defect. The case of opposite party No.2 is that the presence of rust inside the camera is due to external reason occurred by the use of camera by the complainant. When opposite party denied the reason stated by complainant, it is up to the complainant to prove it. But here the complainant did not take any steps to take out an Expert Commissioner to examine the camera and to find out the real reason. In the Ext.A5, it is clearly stated that the present conditions of the camera is water inside the camera LCD and main board fully rusted. Whether the presence of rust is due to the sub standard material used in the camera or due to entering of water inside the camera is to be proved. But Ext.A5 shows the entering of water inside the camera. Here in this case, the opposite party No.1 is ex-parte. Opposite party No.1 did not deny the allegations of the complainant regarding deficiency of service from their side. So the Forum is of the opinion that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.1. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,700/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Seven Hundred) only being the value of camera to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The complainant is directed to return the MO1 to the opposite party No.1 on receipt of the amounts from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% for the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February 2015.
Date of Filing:12.03.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Pushpa Joseph. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:27.03.2013.
A2. Estimate.
A3. Service Job Sheet. dt:20.12.2012.
A4. Service Job Sheet.
A5. Retail Invoice/Cash Memo/Bill.
MO1. Digital Camera.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Copy of the Resolution Adopted by the Board of Directors of Sony India Pvt Ltd,
In their meeting held on February 2014.
B2. Copy of Warranty Card.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
