AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/respondent purchased a digital camera manufactured by the petitioner Company from opposite party no. 4, which is stated to be a dealer of the petitioner Company for the aforesaid product. According to the complainant, he was given training by the seller on 04.06.2004 and 05.06.2004 as to how the said camera was to be used. This is also the case of the complainant that when he tried to use the camera on 06.06.2004, no picture was seen either in its LCD monitor or its view finder. He thereupon took the camera to the dealer, who sent it to opposite party no. 2, Madona Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Since no action in the matter was taken by the opposite parties, the complainant sent a letter to the petitioner Company which vide its letter dated 06.03.2004 asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 40,106/- towards service charges and informed that the defect in the camera had occurred due to influx of water. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company stating interalia that when the camera was brought to its service centre on 09.08.2004, it was found that water had entered the camera and left salt deposit on it. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioner Company was that the defect was attributable to the influx of water which damaged its lens block assembly.
Vide its order dated 09.02.2007, the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner to either replace the camera by a new camera or refund its price amounting to Rs. 69,990/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,000/- Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.05.2009, the Company is before us by way of this revision petition.
Admittedly, no technical evidence was led by the complainant before the District Forum to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the camera purchased by him. A perusal of the job card issued by the opposite party no. 2, Madona Electricals Pvt. Ltd. would show that on checking the camera they had opined that water had gone inside the lense block assembly. Thus the non-functioning of the camera was attributed to an act on the part of the user of the camera. It is, however, an admitted case that the aforesaid report came to be prepared more than two months after the camera was brought by the complainant complaining of its not showing the picture either in the view finder or in the LCD monitor.
In the absence of technical evidence from the complainant, it would be difficult for us to accept the finding that there was a manufacturing defect in the camera purchased by the complainant. The onus was on the complainant to prove that the camera purchased by him suffered from a manufacturing defect. That onus having not been discharged, there is no escape from the conclusion that he failed to prove any manufacturing defect from the said camera. After hearing this mater on 24.04.2015, we directed that a senior technical personnel not below the rank of a manager with the petitioner Company should personally examine the camera in question and file his report supported by an affidavit, explaining the reason for the said camera becoming non-functional. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the affidavit of Mr. Aloke Sanyal, Senior Manager in Service Operations Department of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. has been filed. A perusal of affidavit of Mr. Sanyal alongwith photographs annexed therewith would show that the cause of failure of the camera was liquid ingression inside the body of camera. It clearly shows that in the opinion of the technical expert of the petitioner Company some liquid has entered into the body of the camera as a result of which it stopped functioning. Considering the report of Mr. Sanyal coupled with the fact that no technical evidence was led by the complainant before the District Forum to prove any manufacturing defect of the camera purchased by him, it would be difficult for us to sustain the direction for refund of the price of the camera or replacement of the camera alongwith compensation and the cost of litigation.
However, we notice that there was some deficiency on the part of the opposite party no. 2, Madona Electricals Pvt. Ltd., which despite receiving the camera with complaint of the complainant on 09.06.2004, gave a report more than two months thereafter. The said report in our view should have been given either immediately or may be in a day or two after the camera was received. Some compensation, therefore, needs to be paid by opposite party no. 2, Madona Electricals Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant for the aforesaid deficiency in the services rendered by it to him.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, while setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the complaint qua the petitioner, we direct the opposite party no. 2, Madona Electricals Pvt. Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in the services rendered to him. The camera which is in the custody of the petitioner Company be returned to the complainant within one week. The revision petition stands disposed of.