West Bengal State Commission Holds Canon India Liable For Defective Service, Recommends Camera Replacement

The West Bengal State Commission, chaired by Mr. Subhra Sankar Bhatta and Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, quashed a decision of the District Commission and held Canon India liable for deficiencies in service by not providing free repair service within the warranty period. It was also held that the District Commission erred in its judgment by drawing conclusions which were inconsistent with the evidence, thereby impairing fairness and undermining neutrality.

Brief facts of the case

The complainant purchased a camera from Canon India for Rs. 69,500. Later, when the service technician at the Master Service Centre inspected the camera, no water damage, rust or mould was noticed. However, the next day, he received a message from the service centre stating that the camera had water damage and required repairs costing Rs. 51,000. The complainant vehemently opposed this as the camera was still under warranty. Later, the service centre sent a revised repair estimate of Rs. 27,227. After a series of letters and phone calls, the service centre finally informed the complainant that they could not carry out repairs free of cost despite the camera being within the warranty period of 2 years. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission, which rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the District Commission’s order, the complainant appealed to the State Commission.

Argument of Canon India

Canon contested the case by admitting the purchase of the camera and the first repair of it for defects. Regarding the denial for the second defect, Canon argued that the camera was defective due to rust from exposure to water, which voided the warranty. They argued that the damage was due to the negligence and mishandling of the complainant, which justified their refusal to provide free repair services even though the camera was still within the warranty period.

Observations of the State Commission

The State Commission noted that the key question was whether the camera had become defective due to corrosion caused by exposure to water, caused by negligence and improper handling. The complainant submitted forms showing no evidence of exposure to water when the camera was sent for repair. This evidence, submitted by Canon, implied that the malfunction was not due to exposure to water. The District Forum’s judgment suggested that the complainant, a professional photographer, should have been aware of the risks of exposure to water. However, the Commission found this conclusion unfounded and unsubstantiated. The Commission noted that it is unlikely that a professional photographer would expose an expensive camera to water. Therefore, the Commission found that it could not agree with the District Forum’s unsubstantiated and unverified opinion that the camera had become defective due to exposure to water and negligence on the part of the purchaser. Such a conclusion would not guarantee neutrality or fairness, especially when there are reliable and credible documents indicating otherwise. The Commission noted that the District Commission had erred in its decision.

The State Commission allowed the appeal and held Canon India liable for deficient service and directed them to replace the defective camera with a new one of the same brand or refund the purchase price with interest. The Commission 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: FA No. A/285/2019