A K NAIKWADI Vs. KODAK INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A. K. Naikwadi, Proprietor, M/s Zoom Colour Lab - Kodak Express, Kolhapur, has filed this complaint alleging supply of defective goods and deficiency in service by the opposite parties. In his original complaint, he had prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) However, when the matter was listed for hearing before this Commission on the 29th of November, 2002, the prayer for loss of profit of Rs. 21,84,000/- as also the prayers against free photography amounting to Rs. 75,000/- and towards two free media kits amounting to Rs. 14,000/- were not pressed. Notice thereafter was issued to the opposite parties directing them to file their written version. Of the four opposite parties, service of notice did not materialize with respect to Gretag Imaging Trading AG, Switzerland, opposite party no. 4, and the complainant on 5th of March, 2004 sought the deletion of the said opposite party from the array of parties. Yet another development was that the name of the first opposite party M/s Kodak India Limited was changed to Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the complaint as it stands now is against Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. , opposite parties no. 1 and 2, and Photoquip India Ltd. , opposite party no. 3 for the compensation of Rs. 17,50,000/- towards cost of the machine, Rs. 6,25,650/- as simple interest thereon and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

(3.) Complainant, A. K. Naikwadi, who was already in the business of developing of photography film rolls and photography printing, was offered/lured by the representatives of Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. , opposite parties no. 1 and 2, to open a Kodak Express Lab Outlet at Kolhapur and persuaded him to buy a brand new Gretag Master Lab Machine 740 ML + for Rs. 17,50,000/- from them. By assuring him that this would be the second such Kodak Express Lab in the city of Kolhapur, the first being M/s Subhash Photographics since 1990 and further that they will be protected against any competition by giving an undertaking that no new Kodak Express Outlet would be opened in the city for the next three years and further assuring regular supply of spare parts and prompt and timely after-sale service, repair and maintenance etc. and further explaining that the said Gretag Master Lab Machine 740 ML+ did not require highly skilled operator and had a printing capacity of 500 prints per hour of 4"x6" photographs and above all convincing him that the lab would yield Rs. 9000/- profit per day, and a host of other benefits. The complainant was made to believe that it was an opportunity/good chance for him to improve his earnings and, therefore, he agreed to their suggestion to set up such a lab with the new machine even though it entailed hiring of a new premises. On 2nd of May, 2000, the complainant received a quotation for the supply of Gretag Master Lab Machine along with a list of standard accessories for a price of Rs. 17,50,000/-. A brochure provided to the complainant made various tall claims including about the capacity of the machine that it was capable of giving 500 prints of 4"x6" in an hour. Convinced that the new machine with the promised capacity will indeed enhance his level of earning manifold, the complainant placed an order with the opposite parties, first by paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance and subsequently the balance amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- on 27th of June, 2000. On receipt of the full payment, the machinery which was directly delivered in packed condition at the complainant's premises could be installed by the engineer sent for the purpose by the opposite parties on 31st of August, 2000 only partly as he found it difficult to commission the machine fully. Another engineer Mr. Bhupen Mestri deputed for the purpose, however, managed to commission it with great difficulty on or about 6th of September, 2000. No follow up visit was made by any other engineer/technician/expert even though promised at the time of the commissioning that such a visit would be made on the 30th of September, 2000. The complainant alleges that soon after it's commissioning, he discovered that the machine could not produce the promised number of prints and further that the speed was not constant and consistent. As against the assured 500 prints per hour, it was capable of producing only 170 to 180 prints per hour. Additionally, there was humming sound in the machine and frequent blub burning problem. He has contended that because of the under-rated capacity and the defects in the machine, it not only consumed more power but took more time for developing, processing and printing of the film rolls frustrating his ambition of better earning from the lab. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, who rather than rectifying any defect tried to persuade the complainant to buy one more brand new mini lab model 2600E manufactured by Noritsu Koki Co. Ltd. , Japan marketed by them at a cost of Rs. 12,50,000/- and also develop and print about 100 photo film rolls every day. Apprehending that the complainant was being taken for a ride and also because of his inability to invest further, the complainant did not agree to the proposition. Problem of the complainant was further compounded when the opposite parties went back from their assurance not to open similar lab in Kolhapur city without his written consent at least for a period of three years and introduced 6 Kodak Express Colour Labs during the period, besides introducing 23 Kodak Photo Shops in the city resulting in fierce competition. The complainant also alleges that the opposite party Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. indulged in unfair trade practice, inasmuch as they started selling second hand reconditioned single size photographic mini lab called Micro Machines costing Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 4,75,000/-. Buyer of these machines were also given the same name as Kodak Express Lab Outlet which was in direct conflict and violation with the representation made to him. It has further been alleged that despite repeated complaints, including those in writing about the problems being faced, the opposite party finally responded by deputing a representative of opposite party no. 3, Photoquip India Ltd. , just two days before the expiry of the warranty/guarantee period of the machine, who in his report though stated that the machine was working in good condition the complainant had clearly remarked that the low speed of the machine has not been rectified and the bulb burning problem continued. The only defect rectified by the engineer was with regard to the humming sound which was duly acknowledged by the said engineer. Thus, the complainant tried his best to bring it to the notice of the opposite parties that he was furnished wrong, false, misleading, improper and incomplete information and representations with regard to the machine and its capacity resulting in huge financial loss but failed to get any relief from the opposite parties. He issued a lawyer's notice elaborating in detail the defects in the machine and gross deficiency in post commission service but no reply thereto was received even though vide their letter dated 27.12.2001 and 28.01.2002 it was stated that the matter was under consideration of opposite party no. 3 to resolve the matter, which never came about nor was any reply furnished. Under these circumstances and finding no other way to get his grievance redressed, the complainant was constrained to approach this Commission by filing this consumer complaint.