By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to deliver the repaired camera which is entrusted with opposite party and to get cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a technician and living with the income from the work of camera. He entrusted his Nikon company's camera worth Rs.1,60,000/- in Elim Studio, Sulthan Bathery which is the shop owned by a friend of opposite party, for repair as per order dated 21.04.2011 and the opposite party offered the delivery of the camera on 05.05.2011 and opposite party estimated the repair cost as Rs.1,500/-. On 05.05.2011 the opposite party availed time to delivery till 21.05.2011. The complainant approached the opposite party on 21.05.2011 and demanded the repaired camera, then the opposite party availed some more time to return the repaired camera and but till today the opposite party not delivered the repaired camera. Then the complainant approached the opposite party number of times and all occasions the opposite party said one or other excuses and not delivered the repaired camera till this date. The act of opposite parties towards the complainant is a gross negligence of service and unfair trade practice and due to the illegal act on the part of the opposite party the complainant had loss and damages. Hence the complainant claimed for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- and for an order for the full repair of the camera with full working condition.
3. Notice served to opposite party and opposite party filed version stating that except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and all averments allegations contained in the above complaint is herewith denied since the same is not true or correct. The above complaint is filed on experimental basis and there is no merit and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. The opposite party contented that, the opposite party is is a very reputed firm of having years of experience in the field of photography and relating service and accessories sales and business at Calicut town. In fact the complainant was a regular customer of the opposite party, and introduce himself as an agent of the Elim Studio, Chungam, Bathery, and he obtained a good relation with the staff of the Galaxy Service center. On 21.04.2011 the complainant came up to repair the flash of a camera and a D 70 Camera. For this complaints (repair) two separate job sheets numbered 1383 and 1384 where issued to the complainant. On the same day the complainant comeback to the opposite party shop and submitted that he lost the job sheets and he had some urgency to get the D 70 Camera repaired. On his demand on the same day (21.04.2011) the camera as per job sheet number 1383 was delivered back after identifying the complainant on receiving a sum of Rs.2,000/- as repairing cost. The second job Sheet numbered 1384 which was issued to the complainant on 21.04.2011 was regarding the repair of a Nikon flash, it was brought to the opposite party in a dead condition, opposite party serviced the Nikon Flash, as per the job sheet number 1384 and was returned back to the complainant on 02.03.2012.
5. Again the same complainant came back to the opposite party on 12.08.2011 with complaint to his D70 camera, of having same serial number as in the earlier job sheet 1383. For that on 12.08.2011 another job sheet was issued in the name of Elim studio numbered as Job No.1774. That complaint was rectified and the camera was returned back to the complainant on the same day ie on 12.08.2011 itself on receiving Rs1,000/- as repair charge and Opposite party further says that this complaint is filed only to procuring money from the opposite party in a crooked way and also to defame the opposite party. Hence it is prayed that this complaint may be dismissed on compensatory cost to this opposite party.
6. 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 side of opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1:- Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 and Ext.B1 to B7 are also marked from the side of opposite party. Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 to B6 are marked with objection. Ext.A1 is the work order issued by the opposite party to the complainant, which shows one Flash make Nikon Model SB225 SL No.3021742 Dead condition received by the opposite party dated 21.04.2011, Job No.1384 delivery date not written. Ext.A2 is the Authorization letter. Ext.B1 is the work order given by the opposite party to the complainant dated 21.04.2011 for Flash Model SB22S, Make Nikon, Serial No.3021742, there also no delivery date and there is no signature in both places. Ext.B2 is the work order Job No.1383 dated 21.04.2011 Product DSLR Model D70(black) make Nikon SL No.7056030, Complaint mirror complaint, wherein no signature of either parties and delivery date also not mentioned. Ext.B3 is the receipt which shows the date is 21.04.2011 and received with thanks from complainant Rs.2,000/- in Job No.1383 but there is also no signature. Ext.B4 is also a receipt in which cash received from Anil Bathery and delivery date is 02.03.2012 and no signature and no amount is written and product is Flash, make Nikon, Model SB 22S. Ext.B5 is the work order Job No.1774 dated 12.08.2011 Product DSLR, Model D70, Make Nikon, SL No.7056030, complaint- Memory slot complaint. In which there is no delivery date and no signature. Ext.B6 is the receipt dated 12.08.2011 received from Elim Studio, Wayanad amount written is Rs.1,000/- and no signature. Ext.B7 is the authorization letter given by the opposite party to Mr. Sharath. M. K, S/o. Subash. M. K.
8. The main point is to be decided is whether the camera and flash entrusted to opposite party and whether it is return back or not. Complainant stated in complaint that the camera entrusted to opposite party for repair on 21.04.2011 as per the Job sheet (work order) No.1383 and opposite party offered delivery on 05.05.2011 and on 05.05.2011 sought time for delivery on 21.05.2011 but not delivered till today. PW1 deposed before the Forum that “the camera of the complainant entrusted to opposite party and further deposed that it is my signature, in which the document is shown to him and it is marked as Ext.A1”. Opposite party admitted that the Nikon camera were received by opposite party on 21.04.2011 as per Job No.1383 and opposite party also deposed that “The Ext.A1 document is the Job card issued by the opposite party when the complainant entrusted the camera with opposite party and wherein the defects of the camera are noted and the endorsement also will be there and when the product is returned back nothing will be collected from the party in writing but will collect the job sheet which is given at the time of order. Cash receipt will be given at that time and in the case of missing of order form (job sheet), after identifying the owner and after getting it in writing only the product will be returned back”. He further deposed that “the work order bearing No.1774 is with me and no difficulty to produce the said document before the Forum” and further deposed that “there is no difficulty to produce the document before the Forum which is received back at the time of delivery of the product”. But opposite party has not produced the above said documents to prove their contentions. The opposite party has not produced the same which is claimed to be in his custody even though there was a direction by the Forum in I.A.279/2015 to produce it but the opposite party has filed affidavit stating vague contentions.
9. As per the deposition of OPW1 it is clear that the Order form or the Job sheet will be collected back at the time of delivery of the product and in the case of loss of the order sheet after identifying the owner and after getting it in writing only they will handover the product. If it is so, the opposite party can very well produce the document which is received at the time of delivery of the product. But it is not done by opposite party. The Ext.B1 to B6 produced by the opposite party is objected by complainant and all the documents were marked with objection. All documents are computer generated copies and which contain no digital signature, domain name, system name, server name, signature of authorized person and any declaration regarding the genuineness of the document. Hence it cannot be believed at all.
10. Hence the Forum of the opinion that the opposite party failed to prove their contention that the camera is returned back to the complainant. So the Forum found that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
11. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party, the opposite party is liable to return back the camera to the complainant and if it not available, the opposite party is directed to pay the price of camera after deducting a nominal depreciation and also liable to pay the compensation and cost of the proceedings. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to return back the camera which is received by the opposite party as per the Job sheet No.1383 dated 21.04.2011. On failure the opposite party is directed to pay the value of the camera after deducting a nominal depreciation of 20% ie Rs.1,60,000/- less Rs.32,000/- as depreciation = Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand) to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum 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 14th day of September 2015.
Date of Filing: 21.05.2012. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Muhammed Jasim. Works in MobileShop.
PW2. Pushparaj. Photographer.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Sarath. Manager, Galaxy Digi Service.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Work Order No.1384. Dt:21.04.2011.
A2. Authorization letter. Dt:20.02.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Work Order No.1384. Dt:21.04.2011.
B2. Work Order No.1383. Dt:21.04.2011.
B3. Receipt. Dt:21.04.2011.
B4. Receipt. Dt:02.03.2012.
B5. Work Order No.1774. Dt:17.08.2011.
B6. Receipt. Dt:12.08.2011.
B7. Authorization letter. Dt:13.04.2015.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
