Delhi

East Delhi

CC/396/2022

DR. ANIL KR. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADVANCE COMPUTER & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

C.C. NO. 396/2022

 

	Anil Kumar Sharma, R/o. A-1257-58, GDF, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, East District Delhi-110096.	…………Complainant
Versus
1.         2.	Advance Computer Through Its Proprietor; Kamal Kishore, B-29, Shiva Tower, GT Road, Ghaziabad, UP-201001.   Kamal Kishore, B-29, Shiva Tower, GT Road, Ghaziabad, UP-201001.	……OP1     ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 14.07.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 16.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 18.05.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

By this order Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant w.r.t. deficiency w.r.t. selling defective camaras & then by not providing service by OPs in properly installing of the camaras at his residence.

1. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that, the complainant was interested in getting the security camaras installed at his residence and the OP2 who is the sole proprietor of OP1 approached the complainant and after brief discussion in between them the OP2 visited the premises of the complainant and thereby both entered into an agreement. The CCTVs were installed at his premises and services were to be provided by OP2 for the up-keep of the camaras which were installed on 06.09.21 for consideration of Rs. 14,500/- but from the next day the multiple faults started appearing in the camaras, complaint of which was made to OP2 on 08.09.21 and some technician was also sent by OP2, who after inspecting, informed that the same would be rectified and thereafter various complaints were made to OP2 but OP2 neither turned-up nor removed the technical fault in the camaras rather OP2 started ignoring the calls of the complainant. However on 24.09.21, OP2 picked-up the call and told the complainant that the device would be sent to the company and company will either return or repair the device or would exchange with new one, which will take about 25 days but nothing happened even after 25 days and when OP2 was contacted again he instead of removing the problem stated that he would not do anything and  “Jo karna hai kar lo” and aggrieved from such conduct of the OP2 the complainant has filed the present complaint thereby demanding Rs. 14,500/- from the OPs alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation charges Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant has also demanded of Rs. 10,000/- towards destruction made to the building at the time of installing the camaras.
2. OPs were served on 17.08.22, but they did not appear on the date fixed i.e. 16.09.22 and since none appeared even on 09.11.22 i.e. next date of hearing, both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte and complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence alongwith the written arguments. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. In nut-shell the complaint of the complainant is that OP2 who is a proprietor of the OP1 installed defective security camaras at premise of the complainant by charging Rs. 14,500/- which were not functioning properly and when approached by the complainant, OP2 neither replaced the camaras nor rectified/repaired the same and as such complainant has suffered loss equally to the cost price of Rs. 14,500/- and is also suffering mental agony. The case of the complainant has gone unrebutted despite services of OPs who have not turned-up to put their defence/version. The copy of the bill is attached and there appears to be no ground as to why the version of the complainant be not believed. Although there is no report as to whether camaras were defective or were not working or required repair as there is no expert opinion on the court-file yet facts speaks for themselves as the camaras were installed on 06.09.21 and first complaint was made about non functioning of camaras on 07.09.21 i.e. next day itself and thereafter despite various calls made, the camaras were neither rectified nor repaired. Every consumer who purchases new product, purchases the same with assurance to himself that the new product would not create any problem to the purchaser/customer at least for one year during which the warrantee is generally given and it is not expected that product would be out of order from the day one or then would not be rectified by the by the person installing it. In the present matter OPs have not only delivered defective material but even has not tendered the services required to be given thereafter and in the considered opinion it amounts to deficiency in service.
4. The Commission therefore orders as follows;

• OPs to return the amount of Rs. 14,500/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of receiving the amount till actual payment.
• OPs to pay Rs. 7500/- as compensation including litigation to the complainant.

This order be complied by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receiving the order and if the OPs would not comply the order within 30 days, it would pay the interest @9% p.a. on the entire amount of Rs. 22,000/- @12% p.a. to the complainant till realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to both the parties free of cost as per Rules. 

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 18.05.2023.