Feedback - FROWNS

[abhivg]

Hi All,

Really long post but please bear with me.

I would like to bring to notice to the moderators and forum members an ordeal that I am going through right now due to a purchase I did through the sale forum:
I recently purchased a lens put up for sale in the following thread:   http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php/topic,26647.0.html
The seller is a certain Mr. Saurabh Pandit (user ID: saurabhart215) from Borivali, Mumbai

As per the details in the post the lens is a Canon EF 24-105mm F4 lens which Mr. Saurabh Pandit bought 2 years back and he mentions that he is the original owner of the lens. What I understood from this is that he bought it new and has been using it for 2 years. Secondly he clearly states that the lens condition is "Good, No scratches or Fungus on lens".

I initially talked with Mr. Pandit over the phone and he mentioned that he bought the lens new 2 years back and he is using it since. He also said the lens condition is very good and he has always stored it in a dehumidifying cabinet. We did initial negotiations over the price of the lens over the phone and settled on a price of 39K. He arranged for having the lens delivered with his niece who stays in Pune where I live. Since I was apprehensive buying an unseen item, I asked my cousin who lives in Mumbai to personally go to Mr. Saurabh Pandits place and check the
item and pay for it in person. My cousin is not a photography expert and he checked the item and thought it seemed fine. My cousin made the payment on Friday, 3rd May 2013. On making the payment, Mr. Saurabh Pandit sent the lens along with his niece to Pune and I received it on 4th May 2013.

When I went home and checked the lens, the lens zoom ring seemed a bit stiff and the switches too were stiff. Since I have EFS lenses 3 years old which operate a lot smoother, I sensed something wrong. I looked up the lens code on the net and to my horror the lens was manufactured in 2006 (lens code UU0505)! Not sure why but checking the lens code did not strike me before buying it and that was major stupidity on my part. Also when I checked the lens against sunlight, I could clearly see some fungal growth in one of the inner elements of the lens.

I called up Mr. Pandit on 5th May 2013 and told him the above observations. He then tells me that he doesnt understand lens date codes. He bought the lens as a white box item from a dealer in Fort. He has purchased 100s of cameras from him and trusts the dealer completely. Regarding the fungus he said that he had tested the lens by testing a shot against a white wall which did not show up anything. Also he said that he had had gotten it cleaned from Canon authorised service centre 3 months back. On asking why he got it cleaned, he said there might have been fungus on the lens. He further told me that I should not be worried using it on my camera since it wont affect the camera. I told him I was not willing to take the risk and that I would send the images of both the date code and the fungal growth to him via email.

My email to Mr. Pandit dated 5th May 2013:
----------------------------
Hi Saurabh,

As per our discussion on the phone today:
1) The lens date code is 'UU0505' which indicates that the lens was manufactured in 2006. The second alphabet represents the year of manufacture. Please refer to "http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/date-codes.htm" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens#Canon_lens_codes" . From your post on JJMEHTA, you had mentioned that the lens was 2 years old and you were the original owner, hence I expected it to be manufactured in around 2010-11 and not in 2006. I am attaching the date code image.
2) The lens shows fungus on the internal elements. This can be clearly seen by naked eye against any bright light. I am attaching images which show the fungal growth. Your post mentioned that there was no fungus on the lens.

I wanted to use the lens today but did not due to the fungus. Even though it may not show up in the images, I do not want to take the risk of using this lens on my camera.
Let me know how we should proceed on this.

regards,
Abhishek
----------------------------

I called him up on 6th May 2013, He did not pick up. Called him up again after an our, he said his internet was down and would check the mail soon and reply to my mail. The reply that I got was as follows:

Salient points from Mr. Pandits reply to me dated 6th May 2013
----------------------------
1) The date of manufacturing may be 2006 or even earlier, and the product may have been kept sealed and packed. It was purchased by myself 2 years back and used for 2 years only. As a consumer I would only be concerned with whether the product is sealed and packed or it has been tampered with at the time of purchase. I wouldn't be concerned with the date of manufacturing as it is not a "perishable" item. The lens were used by myself for 2 years and the same was put across to you in all faith and honesty.

2) The lens were thoroughly checked by your brother at the time of handing them over to him and only then the amount was received in lieu. Had there been any concern with regards to any kind of damage or fungal growth, it should have been brought to my notice immediately. And also, being a photographer in business, keeping in mind certain ethics, i would never even offer any equipment on sale if it is damaged or cannot be used. I'd rather get it repaired or discard it, if beyond repairs.

3) Having said the above, I had clearly put across a "No Refund" policy on the JJ Mehta forum at the time of the sale. And your trail mail below clearly states your acceptance towards all terms, conditions and policies.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Do let me know in case if anything else other than the above.
----------------------------

My arguments here are that age of the lens was mis represented; actual age is MORE THAN 3 TIMES THE MENTIONED AGE!!! Facts such as white box item and not bought from authorised canon dealer SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH IN THE AD ITSELF. Also he said he did not have receipt indicating that he bought it 2 years ago. Considering the fact that incorrect details about the fungus were provided by the seller, I am not sure if he bought it 2 years ago or earlier.

Further, the condition of the lens is misrepresented. Saying that there is no fungus in lens when in fact there is, IS NOT ETHICAL. Also he didnt deny that there is fungal growth, but instead blames the buyer by saying you should have checked it first. Not sure what ethics he is talking about.

I sent a reply on 6th May 2013 saying that since the other conditions in his post do not hold true, I cannot accept the "No refund policy" condition and requested for a refund. I did not hear back from him. Hence called him up on 7th May 2013 and asked him what can be done. He said he has invested the amount already and cannot refund. I informed him that I cannot use the lens and that I would go ahead with legal options. He proposed that he'll pay for the lens cleaning. I denied saying that firstly lens is 3 times old than mentioned and that the lens is fungus prone since he had recently gotten it cleaned and it has grown back. He said he'll think about it and let me know.

In my final call with him today 8th May 2013 I informed him that I would pursue legal options, which resulted in his concluding statement of the form 'Do whatever you want, no refund'!!
I am going ahead with all possible legal options.

I would like tell the forum members to learn from my mistake. At the cost of repeating the instructions already out there I would like to say:
- Never be in a hurry to buy the item, whatever the seller may tell you.
- Check lens date codes
- Ask simple and direct questions, dont leave room for assumptions. Do this via email even if you have talked over phone
- If required, request seller to give a more detailed description in writing to leave out any doubts.
- ask for detailed pictures of the item being sold (from specific angles if required)

Mods, kindly take appropriate action regarding this matter as per your discretion.

NOTE: Attaching images of the date code and fungus for reference

regards,
Abhishek

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Bharat Varma]

Also he said that he had had gotten it cleaned from Canon authorised service centre 3 months back.

Ask him for the Service Report from Canon. That should state clearly what was done in the servicing.
Canon would have done a complete checkup of the lens and would have sought approval for the servicing to be done as well as the cost thereof.
You can then also check with Canon as to whether there were any other problems with the lens that were not addressed due to lack of approval from the owner. That would give you a complete history of the lens.

If there is no service report available and Canon does not have a record of the lens serial number, then the probability is that the lens has not been serviced by Canon.

[Vijay Rajan]

+ 1 with Bharat Ji.

From the images of the fungal growth as well as the date code, it isn't hard to deduce that the seller has "cheated" a fellow member on this forum.

If the seller fails to produce Canon service centre's bill mentioning the exact service history, the deal clearly reeks of fraudulent practices. Request our dear Mods to expedite stern action on this seller please.

[abhivg]

@ Bharat and Vijay,

Thanks for your suggestion. I am not sure banning a user would be action "stern enough" in this case. But I guess that's how the system works.

@Mods

Kindly take appropriate action at the earliest so that other people are not cheated further.

Mod Note:
The Moderators are currently evaluating this unfortunate situation.

[lightwave]

It is extremely sad to see an unfortunate situation like this developing on the otherwise hugely successful Buy & Sell Forum of JJMPF. However we are not jumping to any conclusions as of yet and a PM has been sent to the seller asking for a few clarifications and till that reply is received I would request the membership from not labelling any member adversely.

There are some interesting observations & cautions I would like to share with the membership but would like to proceed only after a little more data is available from the seller. As we can see, the buyer has already presented all the data from his side but the seller needs to provide us some facts as seen from his viewpoint.

At this point I will just say that all buyers must take ALL possible steps to protect themselves from a bad transaction because the very nature of forum transactions is that if they go bad, there is not much recourse to the buyer to recover his money in most of the cases.

Thanks.

[zack2137]

My arguments here are that age of the lens was mis represented; actual age is MORE THAN 3 TIMES THE MENTIONED AGE!!! Facts such as white box item and not bought from authorised canon dealer SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH IN THE AD ITSELF. Also he said he did not have receipt indicating that he bought it 2 years ago. Considering the fact that incorrect details about the fungus were provided by the seller, I am not sure if he bought it 2 years ago or earlier.

Further, the condition of the lens is misrepresented. Saying that there is no fungus in lens when in fact there is, IS NOT ETHICAL. Also he didnt deny that there is fungal growth, but instead blames the buyer by saying you should have checked it first. Not sure what ethics he is talking about.

I'm sorry I'd have to agree with the seller more. If the seller declared that the item is without bill, it is fair that he bought the lens 2 years back and that's what he was aware of. Whether the lens was bought gray was something that should have been clear when the seller said 'no bill'.

Regarding the fungal growth, again, you nominated a person who was incharged with pre-buying inspection. Maybe the seller cheated you with the no fungus promise (I'm not taking sides here, I'm just assuming if he did), but the mere fact that you got it inspected should be a reason enough to believe that it was as promised on the date of sale.

The incident is unfortunate and rather is a gray area. There is no black and white here.
Since the seller is offering to get the lens serviced, I'd have to side with the seller here! And yes, thanks for those to-dos before buying glasses over the forum. They are very crucial here.

[abhivg]

I'm sorry I'd have to agree with the seller more. If the seller declared that the item is without bill, it is fair that he bought the lens 2 years back and that's what he was aware of. Whether the lens was bought gray was something that should have been clear when the seller said 'no bill'.

So, "No bill" always means grey? Or can it also mean that the bill cannot be found or is lost?

Regarding the fungal growth, again, you nominated a person who was incharged with pre-buying inspection. Maybe the seller cheated you with the no fungus promise (I'm not taking sides here, I'm just assuming if he did), but the mere fact that you got it inspected should be a reason enough to believe that it was as promised on the date of sale.

The incident is unfortunate and rather is a gray area. There is no black and white here.
Since the seller is offering to get the lens serviced, I'd have to side with the seller here! And yes, thanks for those to-dos before buying glasses over the forum. They are very crucial here.

Before I had "nominated my cousin for pre-buying inspection", we had decided that I would do an online transfer to sellers account and he would send lens directly to me via his niece. Would my request for refund have been honored in that case, since I did not get a chance to "inspect" the lens beforehand? Just my luck my cousin could not spot these things during the inspection.

Anyways zack, thanks for your interesting views and best of luck for your sale deals in the forum :)

[pankaj21]

Hi,

  I am Arun (forum handle: thelightening). I have to share an experience about a person called Karthik (Infantblue) from Chennai.

  Based on this advertisment http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php?topic=8991.0  , I have called this person up and talked to him about the product he is interested to sell. Based on several calls and PM's we agreed for a price of 3000Rs. He clearly mentioned to me that, he is not interested to courier or ship this to Bangalore from his place, Chennai.

Based on this, I tried all the way and at last found a friends collegue, who used to go to Chennai frequently and requested him with the help of my friend to meet infantblue and complete the deal. It was soo hard to make him agree to get these things done, as its a business deal. Based on the arrangement, I have sent infant blue a detailed mail with all the contact details of mine, my friend and his collegue, then about the lens and everything. That single mail was enough to understand the professionalism of a business deal.

I have handed over the money to my friend collegue even to buy this. I called infantblue a lot of time and he didnt pick, but replied with some 1-2 sms about the confirmations. He told he will meet the guy coming from Bangalore and handover the stuffs.

This is on wed (20th april) , today morning (21Apr), I have got an sms from Karthik (infantblue) as follows;

"Hey, One of my friend is desperate to buy my lens for 3500. Anyway as it is only four thousand there in bang, I believe its not an issue with you, I am extremely sorry"

I am taking this as a kind of cheating and the efforts, calls, PM's what we made and agreed is of no value. Rs 500 is great??? If then he might have not committed for 3000Rs at all.

I have did a lot of transactions with other jjmf members , even after receiving the money in the evening in my account, went out , bought packing materials, packed and shipped before courier guy close his store.... I feel thats commitment. Not this one, at least for 500Rs.

Thats the reason why I am sharing my experience over here and it will help my jjmf forum members. Thanks for your patience to read my whole experience. Hope it helps.

Moderator Note:
It is the judgment of the Moderators that a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller took place. Therefore, a contract was in force, and the same contract was violated by the seller. The seller's account has been blocked, and his thread has been removed.

Similar experience for me too...

I went ahead & dropped a mail to the seller selling a canon 50mm 1.8 for 4000/- at http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php/topic,27663.0.html

he mentioned that he is out of Pune & will hold the lens for me until he comes back. also he mentioned that he had been approached by several others too & will let me know once he is back.

He updated the post as on Hold/booked.

Now yesterday I receive a mail mentioning that he is back, but he was contacted by a buyer who is willing to pay 4500/- for the lens & wanted me to confirm if I am interested for that price. :(

I replied back saying that "I am interested in the lens for the price that was initially quoted in the post"

Now today I see he updated his post with Expected price : 4500/-
Also reason being, the buyer (assuming to be me or many others like me)
backed out.
So basically, its clear that there was no buyer who wanted buy it for 4500/- else he would not have updated the price, rather would have mentioned that the lens is booked for another person.

The buyer might be right, but its all about a person's integrity. He should have studied the market rates before committing it any seller
Not sure, if this is an offense or not but wanted to make reputed members & new joiners to be aware before showing interest in deals....at least with people who have very less reputation (posts might be the wrong word here) on the forum.

Thanks !!

Pankaj

[zack2137]

So, "No bill" always means grey? Or can it also mean that the bill cannot be found or is lost?

No, but its general prudence to know where the bill and warranty papers are. Not that the buyer is correct in withholding the information, but lack of general prudence puts you in the same shoes. And upon inquiry if you realize that the item never had a bill, it should ring a bell. If at all it didn't, it makes a case for the seller that he bought the lens from a person of his choice and that he never promised/ was aware that the lens is from a more recent batch.

Before I had "nominated my cousin for pre-buying inspection", we had decided that I would do an online transfer to sellers account and he would send lens directly to me via his niece. Would my request for refund have been honored in that case, since I did not get a chance to "inspect" the lens beforehand? Just my luck my cousin could not spot these things during the inspection.

Yes, you had a case there. And frankly so, if it was agreed beforehand that a refund is to be granted if the lens fails a physical inspection. But most ads that I've seen on JJMF put a condition that all inspections have to be made beforehand.
Now nominating your cousin for inspection is as good as you inspecting the glass in person. If he is not proficient with lenses and their functioning, you could have asked the seller to send the lens with his niece, inspect it in person and then pay her niece to be 100% sure of what you are buying.

Having said the above, I believe the seller has misrepresented the item for sale and exploited the inherent limitation of buy-and-sell forums. A case could also be made that the seller himself wasn't aware of the fungal growth, since it never showed on the pictures. What really happened here, is for the mods to decide.

My $$0.02

Anyways zack, thanks for your interesting views and best of luck for your sale deals in the forum :)

Thanks, I'm actually trying to sell a couple of things, using JJMF for the first time! This has garnered my interest somehow! :)

[VikramF]

I'm sorry I'd have to agree with the seller more. If the seller declared that the item is without bill, it is fair that he bought the lens 2 years back and that's what he was aware of. Whether the lens was bought gray was something that should have been clear when the seller said 'no bill'.

So, "No bill" always means grey? Or can it also mean that the bill cannot be found or is lost?

"No Bill" means that Nikon India will treat it exactly as it would a grey item (viz. you would need to pay for all repairs/servicing).

Nikon India, not only needs the original bill, but also the warranty card. BOTH need to be presented together (just one or the other will not suffice). They may consider exceptions - but those will only be exceptions and not thought of as a rule.

This is confirmed many times from Nikon Service on Richmond Road Bangalore and here's what their site says:
2) To validate this warranty card, you are requested to fill in all necessary information (owner's name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and date of purchase) on the front. This warranty card together with the original purchase receipt must be presented to the Nikon authorized service facility before any repair can be made under warranty.

I feel the need to clarify this for all those who buy Nikon equipment under the impression that it's under warranty when it's advertised as "with warranty card but can't find bill" or "Scanned copy of bill available" ..... it's not. It's exactly the same as buying an item without a bill or warranty.

As the warranty kicks in only from the date of sale and as items sometimes lie in stock for 2+ years, Nikon India needs BOTH bill and warranty.

PS: Writing this here as the other day I got a call from a fellow member who bought an item from a well known store in Burma Market and was assured by the shop keeper that as he had the warranty card stamped, there wasn't a need for a bill (that's how the shop reduced the price - to avoid tax). To Nikon India - that is still a grey item and they won't honour the warranty.