West Bengal State Commission Holds Canon India Liable For Deficiency In Service,Directs To Replace Camera

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant bought a camera from Canon India for 69,500. Later, when the service engineer at the Master Service Centre inspected the camera, there was no water damage, rust, or fungus noted. However, the next day, he received a message from the service center indicating the camera had water damage and required repairs costing Rs.51,000. The complainant strongly opposed this, as the camera was still under warranty. Later, the service center sent a revised repair estimate of Rs.27,227. After a series of letters and phone calls, the service center ultimately informed the complainant that they could not provide free repairs, despite the camera still being within the 2-year warranty period. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission which dismissed the complaint Aggrieved by the District Commission's order, the complainant appealed to the State Commission.

Contentions of Canon India

Canon contested the case by admitting the purchase of the camera and its initial repair for malfunctioning. Regarding the refusal for the second malfunction, Canon argued that the camera malfunctioned due to rust from water exposure, which voided the warranty. They argued that the damage was due to the complainant's negligence and mishandling, thus justifying their refusal to provide free repair services even though the camera was still within the warranty period.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the core issue was whether the camera malfunctioned due to rust from water exposure caused by negligence and mishandling. The complainant produced forms showing no indication of water exposure when the camera was handed over for repair. This evidence, submitted by Canon, implied that the malfunction was not due to water exposure. The District Forum's judgment suggested the complainant, a professional photographer, should have been aware of the risks of water exposure. However, the Commission found this conclusion unfounded and uncorroborated. The Commission noted that a professional photographer was unlikely to expose an expensive camera to water. Therefore, the commission ruled that it cannot agree with the unsupported and unverified opinion of the District Forum that the camera malfunctioned due to water exposure and negligence by the purchaser. Such a conclusion would not ensure neutrality or justice, especially when there are reliable and credible documents indicating otherwise. The Commission noted that the District Commission erred in its decision.

The State Commission allowed the appeal and held Canon India liable for deficiency in service and instructed them to replace the malfunctioning camera with a new one of the same brand or refund the purchase price with interest. It also directed Canon to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.

Case Title: Santanu Roy Chowdhury Vs. M/S Canon India Pvt Ltd.

Case Number: F.A. No. A/285/2019