IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2016.
Filed on 02.03.2016
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.68/2016
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:-
P. Pradeep 1. The Managing Director
S/o Peethambaran M/S Sony India Pvt Ltd
Preethi Nivas, Registered Office – A, 31
Kalavoor P.O., Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate
Alappuzha. Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110 044.
2. Proprietor
M/S Madona Care Centre
Sony Authorized Service Centre
Allens Cube, Paradise Road,
Janatha Junction, Vyttila.
3. Proprietor
M/S Tokyo Shop
Penta Menaka Shopping Complex
Shanmukham Road,
Marine Drive, Cochin – 682 031
O R D E R
SRI.ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in short is as follows:-
The complainant is a reputed photographer by profession. He has several year of standing in the field who handles different types of cameras. In order to eke out a living, he runs a studio in the name and style ‘Maharaja Studio’. The complainant on 29th August 2014 purchased a Sony Lens, Sony Kit and Battery Grip with accessories from the opposite parties.
The said set carries two years of warranty from the date of its purchase. On 8th October 2015, while taking photographs in a function, the complainant realized that the lenses of the camera were not functioning properly. The pictures so taken suffered from clarity or sharpness. The picture were of pathetic inferior quality. On 9th October 2015, the complainant entrusted both the lenses to the opposite parties. Thereafter on 21st November 2015, the Battery Grip also went out of order. Over again the complainant approached the opposite parties, and impressed upon them what had taken place as to the Lenses and the Battery Grip. The opposite parties disdainfully refused either to patch up the lenses and the Battery Grip or to replace the same. The complainant had purchased the opposite parties’ product on trusting their good will and reputation . The complainant had to use hired equipments to do justice to his hectic sequence of works. He is giving Rs.4,000/- (four thousand) per week towards rental fee. The complainant sustained inestimable monetary loss and mental agony. The complainant got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Notices were sent. Though opposite parties turned up before this Forum, they have not taken any step to pursue the case any further. With the result, the opposite parties were set exparte.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant, and the documents Exbts A1 to A9 were marked. As has been already observed, the opposite parties take any step up to dispute the complainant case.
4. Going by the contentions of the complainant the questions that come up for our consideration are:-
- Whether the opposite parties’ service is deficient?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased Sony Set from the opposite parties. The complainant’s specific case is that on 8th October 2015, the lenses so purchased from the opposite parties got damaged leading to pictures of less clarity and poor quality. Subsequently on 21st November 2015, the Battery Grip also turned defective. Both ill-fated episodes took place duly within the warranty period. The complainant approached the opposite parties forthwith to get the defects of the gadgets set right. Notwithstanding the warranty was still running, and the defects were of inherent, the opposite parties were reluctant address the grievance of the complainant , the complainant vehemently contends. We perused the entire materials brought on record by the complainant. At the first blush itself, it is categorically clear that the opposite parties were indifferent to the sad plight of the complainant. The Exbts A1 to A9 speak clearly in support to the complainant case. As observed earlier, though the opposite parties turned up and offered to settle the matter, they haven’t kept their words. Sufficient opportunities were provided to them yet they haven’t made it point either to settle the case or dispute the same. Therefore, in the premise of the complainant’s most explicit case, and in the absence of any materials on the part of the opposite parties we are least hesitant to accept the complainant’s case. It goes without saying that the complainant is entitles to relief.
For the forgoing facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get the lenses replaced and the Battery Grip revamped. In this context, the opposite parties are directed to give the complainant new lenses and give back the battery grip in perfect condition. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)as compensation for the mental agony the complainant sustained to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the Complainant:
Ext.A1 - copy of the Invoice /Reports (2 nos.)
Ext.A2 - warranty card of Camara Lens
Ext.A3 - Service job sheet of Camara Lens
Ext.A4 - Service job sheet of Camara Kit (body &Lens)
Ext.A5 - Service job sheet of Battery Grip
Ext.A6 - Warranty card of Camara Kit (body & Lens)
Ext.A7 - Copy of Legal Notice
Ext.A8 - Postal receipts (3 nos.)
Ext.A9 - Acknowledgement Cards (2 nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties: Nil.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: - P/-
Comprd by :-
