SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER The complaint is filed for the refund of price of security instruments or replace with defectless new instrument and for getting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: Allured by the advertisements of opp.parties, the complainant had placed orders for installing security system in his Financial Institution namely M.M. Financiers for getting secured from Burglary and theft. The opp.parties installed the system for a total value of Rs.15,724/-. The opp.parties assured that the system will protect his home and Business Firm by producing siren and flickering red light. Within a few days of installation, the Security System showed some troubles as untimely alarm sound and emanate flickering light even in the absence of movement of human beings Repeated troubles caused much disturbances to the neighbours. As reported by the complainant the technician of opp.party tested the system and told that system is bearing some major manufacturing defects. It was taken back and reinstalled by the opp.parties but the defect repeated. The matter again informed by the complainant to the opp.parties and they replaced with another type of system on 10.2.2006. While system was in operation on 20.7.2006 some thieves entered into the building during night and committed theft of gold ornaments and currency amounting Rs.12,86,904/-. The security system did not performed the service assured. At the time of house breaking and committing theft the system did not produced siren or flickering light. The system kept in the building idle. The act of opp.parties is deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting compensation. Opp.party filed version contenting interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Statements in para 1 and 2 of complaint is admitted. Allegations in para 5 is not correct. No complaint is placed before the opp.parties. The system will work only when it is switched ‘ON’ 20.7.2006 the day in which theft was committed the complainant had not switched the system ‘ON’. As the system is electronic working with wireless detector, if any failure happened it is beyond the control of opp.parties. Complainant had not demanded to attend any complaint so far. If there is any defect in the system the opp.party is ready to rectify. Para 7 of the complaint also incorrect. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opp.parties. The opp.parties are not liable to compensate. The complainant has got a huge amount by way of insurance claim and the complaint is to make unlawful again. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. He was examined as PW.1 , Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. Even though sufficient opportunities has been given, the opp.parties were not adduced any evidence. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Reliefs and cost. Points 1 and 2 Opp.parties has stated in their version that no complaint was placed by the complainant. But this fact is admitted by the chief Executive Office of Security System International, through the letter received by the complainant on 30.10.2006. Letter marked as Ext.P3. We find that the statement that no complaint was lodged is not correct. It is stated by opp.party in their version that the system was not switched at the time of theft. Opp.party could not adduce any evidence to prove for this statement. We think that the statement is not bonafidy. On a perusal of the complaint, affidavit, documents, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to refund the price of Security instruments of Rs.15,724/- with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of day of January, 2009. . I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant. PW.1. – Joseph Sugin List of documents for the complainant P1. – Security System Invoice P2. – FIR P3. – Letter sent by opp.party | 
