National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Anil Kumar Chopra vs Managing Director, M/S. Sony India Pvt. ... on 14 December, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3088 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 30/09/2015 in Appeal No. 1066/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. ANIL KUMAR CHOPRA R/O 605, PRITHVI BLOCK, ANUSANDHAN VIHAR, DRDO COMPLEX LUCKNOW ROAD, TIMARPUR NEW DELHI-110054 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. A-31, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : IN PERSON For the Respondent :
Dated : 14 Dec 2015 ORDER JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant purchased a Sony camera on 30.11.2009. The camera carried a warranty of one year. On 01.05.2013, when the camera was out of warranty, the complainant/petitioner took it to the workshop of the opposite party no. 2, M/s. High End Solutions, which gave an estimate of Rs. 1,826/- for repairing the camera and replacing the defective part. According to the opposite parties, on opening the camera and checking the same, they found that PWB FP flexible needed to be replaced. A revised estimate of Rs. 6,597/- was then prepared. The respondents sent an e-mail to the complainant on 24.05.2013, requesting him to approve the revised estimate, so that the service could be completed. The complainant, however, did not make the aforesaid payment. Another e-mail dated 27.05.2013 was made to the complainant to approve the revised estimate. Again approval was not given. The opposite parties then sent a third e-mail dated 29.05.2013 to the complainant, asking them to approve the revised estimate. That also was not done. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid camera was damaged by the opposite party no. 2, when it was in its custody. According to the complainant, he was not informed that the camera had been damaged by the said opposite party. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, by way of a complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the grounds that the camera was out of warranty and the complainant had failed to approve the revised estimate.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 30.09.2014, directed the opposite parties to refund the entire cost of the camera alongwith cost quantified at Rs. 2,500/-. Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint was also awarded to the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the manufacturer of the product, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 16.10.2015, the State Commission partly modified the order of the District Forum by directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 14,750/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and also pay Rs. 2,500/- as the cost of litigation. Being still dissatisfied, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. It is an admitted position that the camera was purchased in the year 2009, thus it was already 3½ years old when it was taken to the workshop by the complainant. The camera being an old camera, even if it was damaged by the service centre, during the course of diagnosing its problem and/or repairing the same, the complainant was not entitled to a price of a new camera. In my opinion, he was rightly paid depreciated value of the camera, quantified by the State Commission at Rs. 14,750/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint. He was also awarded Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition is dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER