I am facing a problem with product purchased of nikon camera

Originally posted by : Manoranjan
	I purchased a Nikon camera as wanted to gift on birthday to my daughter, however after few months of purchase (online from Amazon) I faced problem as the camera started to malfunction, I contacted Amazon initially they said goods ordered online are returned but complain should be lodged within 10 days of purchase, now since almost a year we are writing and communicating with Nikon customer care but am getting confused the way they answer my query as I gave the camera to service centre they said there are water spot on camera body for which repair will not be covered under warranty and demanded money for its repair , I feel as we never went in outside for photography why water spot will be on body, it might be a trick to reject claim under warranty in such case I wan to know : 1. Will it be fit case to file complaint under consumer court 2. in complaint will it be necessary to file complaint against both Amazon and Nikon or Nikon only?

Orders on online sites, first you need to check return policy.  And start using product immediately.  Once outsie of return policy days, you cant return.  If you have problem with product you take it to service statoin.

They should fix it provided product is under warranty period.  Terms of warrnty be read properly before making claim.

If product is within warranty and service center charged money... you can file complaint with company, if they fail to respond file complaint by contacting adovocate locally to file case in consumer court.

If product outside of warranty, then no use filing complaint or case in consumer court.  It be simply waste of time and money.

Just throw the product and buy new one.

Hi Manorajan. Amazon offers replacement or refund (as applicabe to the sale) for a limited period (a week to ten days) from the date of delivery. However, it doesn't mean that after ten days, you are left with no rights or claims. Subsequent to delivery and expiry of Amazon refund/replacement period, the products purchased through Amazon are entitled to same after sales warrantees and guarantee as offered on a product from an offline store. The only change is that Amazon does not come in the picture now, and you have to get in touch directly with the product's customer support network, as you have rightly done. It is quite possible that Nikon Service Center is trying to avoid its responsibility by making an excuse of water damage. Frankly, Amazon is not even guilty any more since its job is over once you got a product you were satisfied with. It is Nikon which is acting smart with you.

Though, I don't understand what you were discussing with customer support for one year, but assuming that the camera was inside warranty period when you first communicated with customer support (cause of action for the purposes of limitation to be calculated from the date that Nikon unambiguosly refused warranty, for whatever reasons), I'd suggest this:

1. Download your e-Invoice of the purchase in case you haven't done so already (Amazon keeps a copy in your Amazon account and you can retrieve it from there).
2. Send a notice in writing to Nikon, Amazon and the Amazon reseller whom you purchased the camera from.
3. It may not be the perfect case but its not a completely lost case either. If Nikon is alleging water damage, it is for Nikon to prove it. Tell them that the camera was covered under warranty and they have wrongfully avoided replcement/repair dilly-dallying for one year and therefore, now seek a full refund.
4. My suggestion is array Nikon, Amazon and Reseller, all three, as parties. Now, Amazon will take the preliminary objection at the first instance at the very outset that it has nothing to do with the sale and that it was merely a platform, an intermediary who was facilitating the sale. But, it is an undeniable fact that the Reseller received consideration from the consumer via Amazon. Even if one goes to the consumer's credit card/debit card statement, the payment would be reflected toward Amazon, and not the Reseller by name. The inter se relationship between the Reseller and Amazon is their problem, not the consumer's. Even otherwise, Amazon is at least a proper party (if not a necessary party) to a consumer complaint to the extent is facilitated the contract, it is the party which can confirm the  transaction and consumer's  grievance as intimated to Amazon (there could also be a question of authority and agency in law of contracts but that'd be going too far for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act). Further, Amazon will be required to answer any issues on warranty on purchases made online from Amazon, which is in the special knowledge of Amazon alone. There is one, extremely important reason to make Amazon a party: In 2015, Nikon had put up an advisory/caution notice against buying Nikon products from online resellers like Flipkart and Snapdeal and had advised prospective customers to check their warranty entitlements [See the Nikon notice at this link - note that while the notice names Flipkart and Snapdeal, its language is "e-commerce websites like Flipkart and Snapdeal" and if read broadly, Amazon IS LIKE FLipkart, so keep Amazon]. While there is no need to mention this in any legal notice, let this be known to a consumer forum in case Amazon seeks to be deleted as party from a consumer complaint. Though the notice was apparently witdrawn later by Nikon, but if Nikon takes this defence and Amazon is also not there as a party, you'd be left with nobody to claim against!
5. See the following judgment. While I do not entirely agree with the resoning adopted by the State Commission, nor with the rhetoric put down in the order, it may clear your preliminary dobuts. Post your State and I'll see if there's any State Commission order appliable to you.

------------------------------------------------

Ebay India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar 
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Comission, Dehradun , Uttarakhand
First Appeal No.213 / 2013
6 February, 2014

We are not convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is merely an intermediary between the buyer and seller by managing and operating the website www.ebay.in. When we compare this mode of marketing with the traditional marketing system comprising a chain of retailer, wholesaler, distributor and manufacturer, then the appellant can be put at par with a retailer in cyber marketing or e-shopping system. If a consumer purchases some product from a retailer and finds it defective or of inferior quality, then the retailer cannot shrug off his shoulders and cannot escape from his responsibility towards the consumer, merely by saying that it is the manufacturer, who has manufactured such product. It is also the duty of the retailer to sell such products, which are not defective and if a product is found defective, then he should replace it with non-defective product or refund its cost to the consumer. So, is the case with e-shopping or cyber marketing. Thus, the appellant's role is like a retailer and he is liable for any loss caused to the consumer, if the product ordered by him was not delivered. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had received the product which he had ordered for. Therefore, the appellant should have refunded the cost of the product in time, but the appellant did not do so till yet. As such, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondent for mental and physical agony he has suffered. 

----------------------------------------

In Ashok Mahajan v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (5.09.2013) the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab had agreed with the Respondent's defence of damage caused by water logging in mobile handset, for the reason that the Respondent had produced a report of a qualified technical expert in the employ of the Respondent whereas the consumer had not sought expert analysis of the phone either by himself or through an appropriate labiratory under the Consumer Protection Act.

---------------------------------------------------

Ashok Mahajan v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab 

5 september 2013 

...
opposite party No.1 produced evidence for proving that there was no such manufacturing defect in the mobile set and the same occurred on account of the logging of water into the same on account of mishandling. That evidence consists of the affidavits of Gaurav Kumar Ex.R-2, opposite party No.3 and Sukhdeep Sharma, Mechanic Ex.R-3.
In that affidavit Gaurav Kumar specifically deposed that ... after checking ... he found that it was damaged on account of mishandling and water entering into the same.  ... Sukhdeep Sharma, Expert ... found that the damage was caused to the set on account of water entering into the same and there was no manufacturing defect ... he passed the diploma in Mobile Repairing from Indian Institute for Mobile Technology, Chanidgarh in the year 2005 and has full knowledge and experience in repairing of all types of mobile sets. That qualification and experience was never challenged by the complainant. That qualification and experience itself shows that this witness is expert in the repairing of the mobile sets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@HH: On a side note, I think online sellers are fine...Amazon very fairly provides a no quetions asked 10 day replacement/refund policy. So much so that in some cases, Amazon will even refund if a buyer states that he wishes to return the product since he longer needs it (within the 10 day window of course, but offline sellers usually won't lets you do even that; imagine buying something and 2 days later going to the shop asking for the refund saying that you don't need it any more haha). Apparently its Nikon which is trying to pull a fast one on the querist and I won't be surprised...electronics, be it mobile phones or camera as in this case, the first and the easiest excuse these customer support guys can imagine is 'water damage'.

Appreciate the details and citations posted by Mr. Atul (public ID).

Probably the camera started malfunctioning after the period covered in Return Policy of M/s Amazon.

The service center has already transferred the onus on you, by stating that there are obvious water marks on the body and (hence assuming water has seeped in camera) camera is malfunctioning.

In other words you have not handled and safely kept the equipment.

Has service center provided you with its report in writing: with its diagnosis that camera is malfunctioning due to water marks on the body and (hence assuming water has seeped in camera)?

What is the reply of Manufacturer?

Has it asked you to send camera to it?

If you are not getting a fair deal from service center and manufacturer then you may approach DCDRF.