BEFORE THE HONBLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, KOTA, RAJSTHAN COMPLAINT NO.

210/ 2011 IN THE MATTER OF:ALOK BERRI .COMPLAINANT VERSUS DIGITAL PHOTOMAKE & ANR. .OPPOSITE PARTIES EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY I, Deepanshu Tandon, working for gain with M/s Canon India Private Limited at its Corporate office at 7th & 8th Floor, Building No. 5, Cyber Terraces, Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana and presently at Gurgaon/ New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under. 1. I say that I am Asst. Manager Legal with M/s. Canon India

Private Limited and duly authorized to sign, verify and file the accompanying reply by virtue of resolution adopted in meeting of board of directors of the Opposite Party No.2, held on December 1, 2011, Board Resolution is exhibited as Ex. OP 1/1. That I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case as such am also fully competent to swear and affirm the present affidavit.

2.

I say that the complaint under reply is based upon false and

misconceived allegations. The Complainant has deliberately concealed true and material facts from this Honble Forum, which material facts have a definite bearing upon the outcome of the present case and by doing so has made false and frivolous allegations against the answering Opposite Party No.2. 3. I say that it is submitted that the Complainant purchased a

camera (bearing Model No. IXUS 105is) hereinafter referred to as said camera as per his complete satisfaction, subject to applicable warranty terms and conditions. Admittedly there was no complaint of any nature at the time of purchase of the said camera and thereafter. It is only on 16.10.2010 i.e. approximately after five months of the purchase, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 with the alleged defect in the said camera. 4. I say that it is submitted that Canon cameras, traded by

Canon India Private limited are sophisticated electronic devices should be properly used and handled. Canon Cameras are repaired by the Master Service Centers, of Canon India Private Limited situated at various locations across the country. The Canon Care Centers are meant to collect the Cameras and forward them to the nearest Master Service Centre (MASTER SERVICE CENTRE) for attending complaints. On 16.10.2010 the said camera was received by Opposite Party No. 2 from its Canon Care Centre at Jaipur who has received it through opposite party No.1 with defects reported as Lens Error. That the

said camera was duly attended by engineers of Opposite Party No. 2. On inspection of the said camera by Opposite Party No. 2, it was found that the said camera had been mishandled by the Complainant and thus warranty provisions have been violated by the Complainant. It is submitted that the aforesaid observations on the said camera has been clearly mentioned in Job Sheet dated 16.10.2010, by ticking Observation On Product as Mishandling/ Tampering of the product A copy of the Job Sheet dated 16.10.2010 is exhibited as Ex. OP 1/2. That it is submitted that as a goodwill gesture & customer delight oriented policy of OP No. 2 the optical assembly of the said camera was repaired fee of cost under warranty with a advice to the Complainant to handle the said camera with due care & caution as electronic products are sophisticated devices which require proper care & maintenance. That it is denied that the said camera in question had manufacturing defect in it. 5. I say that it is submitted that again the said camera was

received on 24.11.2010 by Opposite Party No. 2 from its Canon Care Centre who has received it through opposite party No.1 with defects reported as New Problem. That the said camera was duly attended by engineers of Opposite Party No. 2. On inspection of the said camera by Opposite Party No. 2, it was again found that the said camera had been mishandled by the Complainant and thus warranty provisions have been violated by the Complainant. It is submitted that the aforesaid observations on the said camera

has been clearly mentioned in Job Sheet dated 24.11.2010, as Battery cover rubber is missing in it and lens stuck inside badly, scratches on the body & LCD and also by ticking Observation On Product as Mishandling/ Tampering of the product A copy of the Job Sheet dated 24.11.2010 is exhibited as Ex. OP 1/3 as well as photographs of the physically damaged camera are exhibited as Ex. OP 1/4. The said Camera purchased by the Complainant is not covered under warranty in as much as the warranty provisions thereof have been violated. It may be noted by the Honble Forum that the said Camera was physically damaged as evident from the photographs already placed on record.. Further, electronic products are subject to inherent risks which vary depending upon their maintenance, handling, storage and environmental conditions to which they are exposed to. The warranty on Camera therefore specifically

excludes the circumstances, where the damage to the Camera has been due to the fault or negligence of the customer. That it is submitted that the warranty provided by the answering Opposite Party is a limited warranty and is applicable only in cases where there is a manufacturing defect in the camera. It is submitted that the warranty provided by the answering Opposite Party is restricted by the terms of warranty. That it is submitted that as per the terms and conditions, the benefit of warranty is not available to customer in case the product is physically damaged, which is the present case.

The terms of the warranty relevant to the present case are reproduced herein below for ready reference: The warranty of the product will be rendered null and void if: Product is physically damaged. Warranty Limitation: The warranty of the product is limited to manufacturing defect only. A copy of the warranty terms & conditions of the answering Opposite Party is exhibited as Ex. OP 1/5. It is submitted that the alleged defect had been caused due to mishandling and negligence of the Complainant and as such the terms of warranty has been violated, therefore the Complainant was not entitled to get free of cost repair of the camera in question.

The Complainant was duly intimated about this fact that warranty has become null and void now he has to pay the repairing cost. Further, an estimate for repairing of the camera in question was also provided to the Complainant. The complainant did not give his approval for the said estimate therefore, the camera in question was not repaired by Opposite Party No.2; so it never amounts to deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party No. 2.

That Opposite Party No. 2, after waiting for the approval of the Complainant regarding the willingness of repair of the Camera in question as per provided estimated cost, sent back the same to the Canon Care Center and presently it is lying with Opposite Party No. 1. as the complainant has not collected the same. The

complainant neither gave approval nor picked up the Camera in question despite numerous requests and reminders.

That the Camera in question was not repaired as the complainant did not agree for payment for repairing charges as the complainant had violated the warranty provisions, making the warranty void on the camera , hence there is no deficiency in services on part of the Opposite Party No. 2. That the Opposite Party No. 2 is/was always ready and willing to provide the after sales services subject to the terms and conditions of the Warranty i.e. after Complainant paying the charges. That the subject complaint is based upon false and misconceived allegations of the Complainant and further the Complainant has deliberately concealed true and correct facts from this Honble Forum, which have a definite bearing upon the outcome of the subject case, by doing so has made false and frivolous allegations against the Opposite Party No. 2.

It is a well-settled principle of law that no one should be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. That the present complaint is filed in clear defiance of the above principle of law. As on One hand Complainant negligently, improperly handled the Camera & on the other hand has not given his approval to the Opposite Party No. 2 for repairing the same on estimated charges, so that he may create pressure upon the answering opposite party. 6. I say that the physical damage is more vividly self explained

in the photographs of the said camera, the optical assembly and lens rim have been damages due to external impact and

mishandling of the said camera.. The Complainant refused to pay the repair charges for the reasons best known to him, therefore the said camera was duly returned to the Complainant without any repairs. 7. I say that facts as stated hereinabove clearly show that there

was no deficiency of service by or on behalf of the answering Opposite Party. Further, the Complaint has failed to alleged and attribute any default and deficiency to the Answering Opposite Party. Also the conduct of the Answering Opposite Party makes it amply clear that the Complainant has indulged in a speculative and vexatious litigation. The facts clearly establish that answering Opposite Party duly attended the complaint of the Complainant. The physical damages in the said camera were not covered under the warranty terms & conditions and as the Complainant refused to

pay the repair charges, the said camera was duly returned to the Opposite Party No.1. 8. I say that it is submitted that Canon India Private Limited is

a well-reputed and renowned company, having over the years by sheer dint of hard work and flawless business dealings earned an enviable business reputation. It takes great pride in its products and related after sales service. The allegations contained in the present complaint are not only false but also defamatory and the Opposite Party No. 2 reserves its right to initiate appropriate legal action against the Complainant. It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party have at all times acted in good faith to resolve and settle the matter. It is submitted that it is the Complainant who has acted in an inordinate manner in order to derive unjust benefits from answering Opposite Party. 9. I say that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi on this ..day of ., that the contents of the above affidavit are true upon my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT