KODAK INDIA (P) LTD. Vs. SPECTRUM COLOUR LAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is by the General Manager, Service and Support, Kodak India (P) Ltd., 2nd Floor, Kalpataru Synergy, opposite Western Express Highway, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai and the Regional Manager, Kodak India (P) Ltd., 115 -Park Street, Kolkata, who have assailed the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No. 241 of 2006. Respondent No. l, i.e., Spectrum Colour Lab, N -4/243, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar through its proprietor Pradip Kumar Dash, was the complainant, the appellants were opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 before the District Forum.

(2.) THE complainant was an unemployed person and intended to set up a photo colour laboratory to earn his livelihood. Accordingly, he purchased a Kodak Mini Lab System 5000 E, Kodak -R -30 Film Processor and other accessories from opposite party No. 2 on 30.3.2002 under invoice and set up such a laboratory at Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar in front of Indradhanu Market. After installation of the machinery, it was found to be defective on 16.5.2002 and the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the printer channel did not function properly for which the print -outs were unclear. The complainant informed this to opposite party No. 2 for repair of the machinery. Due to frequent breakdown in the printing processor Kodak Mini -5000 E and photo printer, the complainant was unable to carry on his work with the machine and sustained financial loss. He reported the matter to opposite party No. 2 in writing. On receipt of the letter, the Assistant Manager, Sales and Marketing of opposite party No. 1 issued a letter to the complainant on 13.6.2002 admitting the defect and intimated that he had already referred the matter to the General Manager, Service and Support to look into the same immediately. Again the complainant wrote to opposite party No. l intimating about the defect, which was due to non -replacement of the defective parts. Thereafter the complainant issued FAX message and registered letter to opposite party No. l about the defects noticed in the machine and the Service Engineer attended to the defects, but without any result. The complainant then intimated to opposite party No. l that due to break down of the machine he had incurred heavy financial loss. As a gesture of goodwill, opposite party No. 4 extended the period of warranty for six months more. The complainant again moved opposite party No. l in writing intimating about the defects persisted in the machine, which were not fully repaired, according to the complainant, and he had to face financial loss. The complainant deposited Rs. 47,500 with opposite party No. l towards annual maintenance charge for 2003 -04 after expiry of the period of warranty through demand draft. The annual maintenance scheme was further extended for the year 2004 -05 and the complainant deposited a further sum of Rs. 57,775 for the said purpose. For the year 2005 -06, the opposite parties did not take any step for renewal of the annual maintenance contract, although the complainant wanted the same by intimating them in writing. On the contrary, opposite party No. 2 wrote a letter to the complainant that Kodak Company was not taking contract for annual maintenance any more. However, if the complainant purchased spares worth Rs. 70,000, the Company would give four visits free of cost. As the Company refused to give service on annual maintenance contract, the complainant sent Rs. 70,000 to purchase spare parts, but the Company failed to supply those in time. Without the spare parts, the machine did not function, for which the complainant issued a letter to opposite party No. l stating that non -supply of spare parts and non -renewal of annual maintenance contract gave rise to financial loss to him. The complainant also wrote another letter highlighting the same grievance and opposite party No. 4 intimated him that the spare parts were not available in India and those were required to be imported, for which they were unable to supply the spare parts. It was further stated that production of the machine was discontinued. The complainant then wrote to opposite party No. 1 at Mumbai that the machine having become defunct, he was facing financial loss. Thereafter, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum for refund of cost of the machine.

(3.) OPPOSITE party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case before the District Forum by filing written version and raised the question that the complainant is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable. According to them, the complainant had set up the mini lab for commercial purpose and so he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not renew the annual maintenance contract for which the machine was not repaired. Since the warranty of the machine has expired, the opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the same. There was absolutely no manufacturing defect in the machine and as such the cost of the same is not liable to be refunded. It is stated by these opposite parties that if any defect was found, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were willing to repair the same again. As per the invoice, parties are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai and, therefore, the Forum in Orissa has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, and the dispute having been filed with mala fide and ulterior intention should not have been entertained at all.