State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rashmi Sood vs Mahatta & Co. And Ors. on 30 May, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 30.05.2016 First Appeal No. 75/2011 (Arising out of the order dated 20.01.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 33/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi) In the matter of: Rashmi Sood R/o CII/25, Tilak Lane Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Now R/o Madhuban Delhi-110091 .........Appellant Versus M/s Mahata & Co. M, Block, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 M/s OLYMPUS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2A5 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi-110014 M/s OLYMPUS IMAGIN Shin-Zuku-Monmlith, 2-3-1 Shinzuku-Ku Tokyo-163-0914 Japan Embassy 50G Shanit Path Chankaya Puri New Delhi-110021 M/s Olympus Vision Solution Corp. Off. 314 Competent House F-14 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 ..........Respondents CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
1) Admittedly a Camera OLYMPUS Model FE-170/E Digital Camera was purchased by the complainant from M/s Mahatta & Co. 59 M Block Connaught Place New Delhi on 30.03.2007 for a price of Rs. 10,500/-. In her complaint, complainant alleged that the camera did not work as per specifications and features given in the advertisement. It was brought to the notice of the OP but on the very next date complainant alleged that she deposited the camera with OP-4 on 19.06.2007. An amount of Rs. 1800/- was demanded by OP-4 for its replacement. On her several enquiries, no specific response came from OP-4. She finally sent a legal notice dated 09.07.2007.
2) Before proceeding further it may be mentioned here that OP-1 is a seller of the camera. OP-3 is a manufacturer whereas OP-4 is the repair centre of the camera.
3) Defence raised by the OP-1 & 3 is that the complainant was never advised to leave the camera with them for replacement. An amount of Rs. 1800/- was asked for the purpose of repairs only. Complainant complained of 'battery cover broken' on 19.06.2007 i.e. after a period of about three months. OP-1 & 3 thus contended that the said defect was not a manufacturing defect. It was also not covered under warranty. The camera was ready for delivery after repair/replacement of defective broken parts against the payment of repair charges.
4) OP-2 contended that it had no connectivity with the camera. It is a company dealing with manufacturing and marketing of Olympus Microscopes in India.
5) Ld. District Forum observed that there was no material on record to support the contention of the complainant that she approached OP-1 or OP-4 on the very next day of purchase. There was no document to show that the camera in question was malfunctioning or the malfunctioning was brought to the notice of OP-1. Ld. District Forum relied upon the job card duly signed by the complainant and relied upon by the complainant. Ld. District Forum observed that a complaint of 'battery cover broken' after a period of three months could not be entertained for the reason that the complainant ought have complained of the same immediately after the purchase.
6) Complainant's case as per complaint is that the camera was not functioning as per its specifications. In other words, it was not the case of the complainant that the camera was not functioning at all. Complainant is not specific as to what it was short of as per specifications.
7) Complainant signed the job card with her eyes wide open that she was complaining only of 'battery cover broken'. Clearly, it was not a manufacturing defect.
8) Complainant in her complaint, complained that an amount of Rs. 1800/- was demanded from her for replacement of the camera whereas in the legal notice complainant alleged that the amount of Rs. 1800/- was demanded for repairs. Vide legal notice complainant demanded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) whereas in the complaint compensation has been demanded to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs Only). Ld. Trial Forum rightly relied upon the job card duly signed by the complainant which shows that only 'battery cover was broken' on 19.06.2007. Complainant has failed to point out any single specification for which the camera did not come upto the mark. Replacement of the camera and repairs of the camera are two entirely different things. Complainant had pleaded at one place that Rs. 1800/- were demanded for replacement and at another place she stated that the said amount was demanded for repairs. This goes to show that it is non-serious, luxurious and vindictive litigation. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
9) Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
10) FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules. (N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)