Chennai: Forum directs camera repair shop to pay compensation
![The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), has directed a dealer of a famous car firm to pay a compensation of Rs 5.83 lakh for damaging the car sent for repair. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), has directed a dealer of a famous car firm to pay a compensation of Rs 5.83 lakh for damaging the car sent for repair.](https://images.deccanchronicle.com/dc-Cover-2u8so3m56226q72ole3hda88m0-20171014080321.Medi.jpeg)
Chennai: An adventure photographer from France has won a legal battle against a service centre which failed to repair his camera six years ago. Based on his complaint, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) has directed M/s Systronics (India) Ltd., Millennium Tower, Nelson Manickam road, to pay Rs 1.30 lakh to him in six weeks.
In the petition, adventure photographer Thierry Damilano, Le Mans, France submitted that he travels all around the world for taking photographs. He organised a Royal Enfield motorbike tour throughout India. On December 24, 2010 he handed over his Sony camera to M/s Systronics (India) Ltd for servicing. Despite a lapse of three months, the service centre had not repaired the camera. After replacing five boards, the centre handed over the camera at New Delhi on February 19, 2011.
He paid Rs 1,67,722 towards the service charge. Barely hours before his departure to Paris, he noticed screws were missing from the camera. After reaching Paris, he handed over his camera to the Sony Service Centre in Paris and the technicians informed that the camera was not reassembled properly and it was not at all put together and some parts were found missing.
On July 6, 2011, the service centre requested him to return the camera and also agreed to refund the money paid by him. Due to the negligent act of the centre, he lost an assignment and he was forced to buy a new camera. Despite several emails and personal visits, the centre had not refunded the cost paid for servicing the camera.
In the petition, he sought direction to refund the amount paid towards servicing, for purchasing a new camera, compensation for deficiency in service and for causing him mental agony. In its reply, Manager of M/s Systronics (India) Ltd, stated that the camera was totally damaged by salty water.
“We informed him that the repair would be undertaken at his risk and cannot guarantee its performance after repair. The petitioner agreed to taking the risk and only then was the camera accepted for repair”, he said.
The centre replaced the damaged boards and after servicing it was working properly and it had not committed any deficiency in service and only as a gesture and the complainant, being a foreigner, agreed to refund the amount.
The bench comprising President K. Jayabalan and Member M. Uyirroli Kannan said that we hold that M/s Systronics (India) Ltd. had committed deficiency in service by not repairing the camera properly and also failed to refund the agreed amount of Rs 1,05,645. The bench directed the centre to pay him '1.30 lakh to him in six weeks.