State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nikon India (P). Ltd. vs K. Prabhakiran & Anr. on 15 July, 2021
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 13.07.2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.07.2021
FIRST APPEAL NO. 859/2013
IN THE MATTER OF
NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD. .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
K. PRABHAKRAN & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: Mr. Saksham Tyagi, Counsel for the Appellant.
None for the Respondents.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
[Via Video Conferencing]
1. Brief facts of the case as per the District Forum record are:
"....that complainant purchased Nikon Digital Camera on 15.05.2012 vide annexure-P1 from Op-2 paying them Rs. 23,000/- in total. OP-1 is the retail dealer and agent of Op-2 while Op-3 is the manufacturer of the memory card. It is argued by the complainant that he along with his wife went on a trip to Europe from 04.06.2011 and carried the camera with him so as to shoot some memorable photos. The camera worked for a few days but before the trip ended on 26.06.2011 it started showing a warning to the effect that any further use shall delete all data. The complainant thereafter switched off the camera and did not use it for the FA 859/2013 Page 1 of 5 remaining trip. He has captured more than 500 invaluable pictures during his tour with his spouse in Belgium, Paris, Amsterdam and five other historical cities of Italy. On return to India he reported to Op-2 the fault which had occurred in the camera along with the memory card, who informed him that there was nothing wrong with the camera but the data card had been corrupted. He left the memory card with Op-2 in their shop for retrieving the data but it proved futile and complainant was told that the memory card will shown at the service centre of Op-1. However, after two weeks the memory card was returned telling the complainant that the retrieval of the data was not possible because the memory card had been totally damaged. It is further alleged that Op-2 offered replacement of the faulty memory card which complainant declined. It is also stated that later on Op-2 informed that the memory card was faulty and it was a defective product supplied by OP-3. The complainant then approached Stellar Data Recovery and handed them the defective memory card for retrieval of the data but they informed him on 23.08.2011 that the memory card was totally corrupt and data contained therein was irrecoverable and lost forever.
Complainants case is therefore that he 'suffered mental agony due to faulty memory card provided to him by OP-2 and thus he had lost more than 500 invaluable photographs captured during the trip and hence issued a legal notice on
02.12.2011 to all Ops for an amicable settlement but they declined citing warranty clause. He therefore filed the present complaint against all the 3 Ops before this Forum on 03.01.2012 praying for direction to all Ops to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss, mental agony and harassment. "
2. After perusing the record, the District Forum vide its order dated 10.06.2013 allowed the Complaint of the Respondent No.1/Complainant holding as under:
" OP-1 and OP-2 though denied their liability yet they have no answer to the claim of the complainant that the camera sold by OP-2 to the complainant had a fault may be on account of corruption of the memory card which was an essential part of the camera. OP-2 has opted not to contest the complaint and admittedly is the dealer and retail agent FA 859/2013 Page 2 of 5 of OP-1 who is the manufacturer of the camera in question. OP-3 is the importer of the memory card and if due to corruption of the memory card any loss has been suffered by the complainant on account of the defective product sold by OP-2 all the three Ops cannot escape the liability. Having thoughtfully considered the facts stated by the complainant in its entirety, we feel satisfy that all the three have been deficient in providing the service to the complainant and hence laible to compensate the complainant for sufferance of any loss, mental agony, harassment.
Allowing the complaint we direct each of the Ops shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, if not paid within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order the Ops shall have to pay interest @ 9 % per annum on amount of compensation by each. "
3. The Appellant/Nikon has impugned the aforesaid order on the grounds that the District Forum erred in not appreciating the fact that the actual problem was with the Memory Card alone and the Camera, manufactured by the Appellant/Nikon was in a proper working condition; that the District forum failed to take into consideration the warranty clauses which clearly excluded the liability of the present Appellant/Nikon from the damage occurring due to improper care, misuse etc. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant/Nikon contended that the District Forum order shall be set aside.
4. The Respondent No. 1 is the Complainant, Respondent No. 2 is the person from whom the Respondent No. 1 had purchased the Camera along with the Memory Card and who is also the agent of the Appellant/Nikon and the Respondent No. 3 is the importer of the Memory Card which got corrupted. Despite service, neither of the Respondent has chosen to appear, consequently, their right to file Reply was closed vide order dated 10.04.2017.
FA 859/2013 Page 3 of 55. We have perused the Appeal, the District Forum Record and the Impugned Order. We have also heard the oral submissions of Counsel for the Appellant/Nikon.
6. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to clarify that neither the remaining Opposite Parties i.e. Respondent No. 2 & 3 have filed any appeal impugning the order of the District Forum nor have they filed their reply in the present appeal. Hence, we shall be keeping ourselves confined to the legality of the Impugned Order qua the Appellant/Nikon i.e. the Camera Manufacturer.
7. The only issue to be adjudicated by this Commission is whether the present Appellant/Nikon is liable for Deficiency of Service and has caused mental agony and /or harassment to Respondent No. 1/Complainant due to the Memory Card getting corrupted, which was installed in the Camera manufactured by the Appellant/Nikon.
8. The perusal of the record before us shows that the present Appellant/Nikon is neither the manufacturer, dealer, importer, wholesaler of the Memory Card which got corrupted leading to the loss of the photos captured by the Respondent No. 1/Complainant while he was touring Italy along with his wife. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove that the loss of photos was caused due to any malfunction of the camera. Further, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant has failed to bring on record any evidence reflecting that the Memory Card was actually corrupted due to the functioning of the Camera and/or any change in the software or hardware of the Camera.
9. To the contrary, the facts are crystal clear that the Respondent No.1/Complainant did not face any issue with the Camera and was fully aware that the loss, if any, has been caused by the corruption of the Memory Card only and not due to any other reason.
FA 859/2013 Page 4 of 510. In terms of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the District Forum erred in holding the present Appellant/Nikon liable whereas in fact, there is nothing on record which would establish Appellant/Nikon's liability, since it did not provide/offered the specific Memory Card along with the Camera nor did the Camera manufactured by the Appellant/Nikon caused any issue to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant. Consequently, the order of the District Forum, restrictively to the finding whereby it has held the present Appellant/Nikon liable for loss, mental agony is set aside.
11. At the sake of repetition, it is hereby clarified that nothing in this judgment shall be construed to be a comment on the liability of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in terms of the Impugned Order.
12. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. The FDR filed by the Appellant shall also be released in favour of the Appellant.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:
15.07.2021 FA 859/2013 Page 5 of 5