Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/255

canon india pvt ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

thomas pp - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL. NO.255/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 29.04.2016

 

 

PRESENT : 

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

Canon India Private Limited,

A Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956,                                                       : APPELLANT

Having its Regd. Office at

7^th floor, Tower B,

Bldg. No.5, DLF Epitome,

DLF Phase-III,

Gurgaon-122 002.

 

(By Adv: Sri. J.S Sabu & Adv: Sri. Jaideep G. Nair)

 

            Vs.

 

Thomas.P.P,

Puthenchakkalackal,

Maliecal Road,

Thevara.P.O,                                                                        : RESPONDENT

Cochin-13.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.19/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated January 31, 2015 directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged camera of the complainant with a new upgraded model camera without realizing any amount.

 

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

On January 28, 2011 complainant purchased a Canon Digital Camera Model No. Power Shot A 310013 for Rs.7500/-.  The warranty period was two years from the date of purchase.  After two years camera stopped functioning due to some technical fault.  The 2^nd opposite party after examining the camera informed the complainant that camera cannot be repaired since the damaged Printed Circuit Board camera has to be replaced and the same is no longer in production.  Second opposite party offered to replace the camera with a new one by paying an additional amount of Rs.5900/- for which complainant has not agreed.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint seeking a direction directing the opposite parties to supply a new camera without realising any further amount along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

 

3.      Opposite parties are Canon India Private Limited represented by its Managers.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  It is admitted that complainant purchased the Canon Digital Camera on January 28, 2011.  On September 27, 2013 complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for repairing the same.  On inspection it was found that the PCB assembly was broken and because of that LCD flickering was there.  The first opposite party, the manufacturer informed the 2^nd opposite party that the production of the model in question was discontinued and that therefore PCB is not available.  Therefore first opposite party offered to supply a new upgraded model being PSA 3400 at a discounted price of Rs.5906/- though the market value of the same was Rs.7495/-, but the complainant refused the same.  Even for repairing the camera it will cost Rs.3990/-.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

 

4.      On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A5 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to replace the damaged camera of the complainant with upgraded in model PSA 3400 free of cost.  The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

 

5.      Heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondent/ complainant who appeared in person.

 

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      Almost all facts are admitted.  Complainant purchased the Canon Digital Camera Model No. Power Shot A 310013 for Rs.7500/- on January 28, 2011.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the retail invoice.  On September 27, 2013 complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service agent of the first opposite party manufacturer for repairing the camera.  It is also not in dispute that the printed circuit board assembly of the camera was broken and the same was not available as the first opposite party discontinued its production.  Therefore the first opposite party offered to replace damaged camera with a new upgraded mode PSA 3400 at a discounted price of Rs.5906/-.  Complainant was not agreeable for the same.

 

8.      Counsel for the appellants argued that even now the opposite parties are prepared to supply new upgraded model of the camera to the complainant on payment of Rs.5906/-.  We are of the view that the non production of the spare parts amounts to deficiency of service as the opposite parties are bound to repair the camera within a reasonable period.  The opposite parties cannot insist that complainant should purchase a new camera by paying an additional amount.  Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

9.      The Forum has directed the opposite parties to supply the new upgraded model camera No.PSA.3400 to the complainant without realizing any amount towards the cost of the new camera and the complainant shall return the damaged camera to the opposite parties.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

 

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI  :PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE   : MEMBER

 

VL.