SPECTRUM COLOUR LAB vs KODAK INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR.

The complainant purchased a Kodak Mini Lab System 5000 E, along with Kodak R30 Film Processor and other accessories from the opposite party on 30-03-2002 to set up a photo color laboratory at Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. The aforesaid machine came to be installed on 29-04-2002. The case of the complainant is that the machine developed defects and did not function properly. A number of complaints were made by him to the opposite party and the service engineer visited the laboratory of the complainant several times, but the defects in the machine continued to persist. The opposite party extended the warranty which it had given to the complainant, by six months. However, even during the extended warranty period, the machine did not function well. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, thereafter on the suggestion of the opposite party he entered into Annual Maintenance Contract in respect of the aforesaid machine paying Rs.75,000/- in the first year and Rs.50,000/- in the second year after the extended warranty had expired. The complainant wrote to the opposite party seeking replacement of the machine. That having not been done he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking payment of the cost of machine besides Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss sustained by him and other expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite party inter alia on the ground that the machine having been used for five years, the claim for refund of the price of the machine could not be entertained. It was alleged in the reply that there was no deficiency in the services rendered by the opposite party and no warranty had been given for replacement of the machine itself, the warranty being confined to the replacement of defective parts. It was also pointed out in the reply that as a gesture of goodwill the opposite party had not only extended the warranty by six months but also given one tank solution chemical free and eight rolls of five inches paper, to compensate him for the loss suffered by him. It was also claimed in the reply that the problems encountered by the complainant occurred due to mishandling or non-adherence to the maintenance schedule or on account of the frequent power jerks and improper handling of the machine. It was also pointed out in the reply that the opposite party even got the machine checked by experts from China who found the machine to be in perfect condition when they left the premises of the complainant. The copies of the lab technical reports for the period from 19-02-2007 to 20-09-2007 were filed by the opposite party, to prove that the machine was still in operation and had been repaired from time to time, to the satisfaction of the complainant. According to the opposite party there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the machine sold to the complainant.

Vide its order dated 29-01-2008, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,97,840/- to the complainant and take back the machine from him. The complainant was also awarded compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the opposite party approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31-07-2009 the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved he is before was by way of this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has drawn our attention to the letters dated 20-05-2002, 06-06-2002, 21-06-2002, 22-06-2002, 04-07-2002, 06-09-2002 and 18-02-2003 whereby the complainant had reported defects in the running of the machine to the opposite party. The aforesaid letters would show that though the mechanic of the opposite party promptly attended the complaints made by the complainant from time to time, the problems with the machine continued to persist atleast till 18-02-2003, when the last complaint in this regard was made to the opposite party Kodak India Ltd.. However, after 18-02-2003, the petitioner did not report any complaint in the aforesaid machine to the opposite party, rather vide letter dated 29-08-2003 he sent a demand draft of Rs.47,500/- to the opposite party towards Annual Maintenance Contract which was to commence on 22-10-2003, after the extended warranty was to expire. Later on the complainant paid a sum of Rs.53,775/- to the opposite party towards Annual Maintenance Contract for the second year. Had the machine not worked properly and to the complete satisfaction of the complainant after 18-02-2003 he would certainly have atleast made a complaint in this regard to the opposite party. This is more so considering that in the past he had been regularly complaining to the opposite party as and when any malfunctioning in the machine was noted by him. The very fact that the complainant also chose to award the Annual Maintenance Contract to the opposite party initially for one year commencing 22-10-2003 and then by way of its renewal, without there being any complaint in the meanwhile regarding working of the machine, is a clear indicator that the machine was functioning properly after 18-02-2003 and that is why no complaint in this regard was lodged with the opposite party.

The complaint admittedly came to be filed on 14-08-2006 i.e. more than three years after the said complaint was made to the opposite party on 18-02-2003. Thus, for more than three years before filing of the complaint, the complainant did not report any defect or malfunctioning in the machine to the opposite party. This is yet another indicator that the machine was functioning very well during the aforesaid period.

Considering that the machine did not function properly for some time and the opposite party extended the warranty given to the complainant by six months, besides giving some incentive in the form of one tank solution chemical free and eight rolls of five inches paper. It cannot be denied that there were defects in the machine, which came to be removed some time after 18-02-2003. The work of the complainant must have suffered during the days, the machine remained out of order. When a person purchases such a machine, from a reputed manufacturer, he does not expect such defects, lasting for about one year. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner should have been awarded compensation only to the extent of the value of Annual Maintenance Contract for one year. Considering that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.47,500/- for the first year and Rs.53,775/- for the second year, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.53,775/- would serve the interest of justice in the case before us. We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.53,775/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment within eight weeks from today. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of.