This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 04.03.2021 in Appeal No. 666 of  2017 whereby her appeal against the order dated 10.11.2017 in CC No. 656/15 of the District Forum dismissing her complaint was also dismissed.

-2-

2.       Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in her complaint is that she had placed an order to the respondent to install two high quality HD CCTV Cameras at her flat and paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-.  She on demand by the respondent subsequently paid Rs.2000/- for another camera.  However, the respondent installed only one camera on 28.05.2015.  She, however, later learnt that respondent had installed defective camera and did not install the HD CCTV camera and also did not repair the camera.  On these contentions, she filed a complaint.

3.       The opposite party took a plea that he had given an estimation of work of installation of CCTV camera vide order no. 181 dated 27.05.2015 for Rs.9860/-. She changed her mind and asked the respondent to supply two cameras for Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.11,710/.  The respondent agreed for change and issued receipt of balance amount of Rs.7000/-.  He took the plea that he had never promised the complainant for supply of HD CCTV cameras. He only promised to install Sony camera.   When on 28.05.2015 he visited the complainant for installation of the CCTV cameras, she changed her mind and asked for installation of one camera.  Accordingly, new work order dated 28.05.2015 was drawn for Rs.11,000/-  minus Rs.1850/- for cost of one camera.  The opposite party installed CCTV camera on the request of the complainant.  On 28.05.2015. she complained that her neighbour  had thrown yellow sarso at her doorstep and she wanted to record the movement of her neighbours. She was explained by the opposite party that camera can cover

-3-

only  particular range and angle of view and that the cameras were functioning properly.  He had stated that false complaint has been filed. 

4.       The parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  Before filing the affidavit of evidence, the complainant also filed her rejoinder wherein she again reiterated the claims in the complaint wherein she had stated that she had purchased HD CCTV camera. 

5.       After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, the District Forum has held as under:

“After having heard both sides at length and going through the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents placed on record it is evident that case of the complaint is that she placed order and purchased HD CCTV cameras from the opposite party.  The opposite party did not install the HD CCTV cameras.  Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Whereas case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased Sony CCD and the opposite party installed the same.  There is no complaint of not functioning of the CCTV cameras.

          The parties have placed on record estimate orders dated 27.05.2015 and 28.05.2015 and perusal of the estimate orders show that the opposite party sold Bullet Sony CCTV cameras to the complainant.  The complainant has failed to show any proof that she purchased HD CCTV cameras from the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, there is no merit in the complaint.  The same fails and is hereby dismissed.”

-4-

6.       This order was impugned before the State Commission and the State Commission after re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidence on record has held as under:

“7.      On perusal of the estimate / order dated 28.05.2015 filed by the appellant alogwith the present appeal, we find that one Bullet Sony CCTV camera was purchased by the appellant for a consideration of Rs.9150/ with a guarantee of 12 months from the date of installation of camera.  There is no whisper of HD CCTV Camera in the evidence available on record before us.  Once it is clear from the documentary evidences that the camera ordered was Sony Bullet CCTV Camera and not HD CCTV Camera, there is no question of any unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.

8.       The failure of the appellant to produce evidence with respect to the purchase of HD CCTV Camera from the respondent has proven fatal to her case and the findings of the District Forum that the appellant failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent is in consonance with the settled principles of law.

9.       Consequently, we hold that Respondent is not guilty for Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency of Service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the respondent had discharged his liability by installing one Bullet Sony CCTV Camera at the residence of the appellant on 28.05.2015.

10.     In terms of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the judgment dated 10.11.2017 passed by the District Consume Disputes Redressal Forum (West) New Delhi.”

7.       This order is impugned before us taking the same plea that she had ordered for two HD CCTV cameras and only one was installed and it is submitted that orders of the Fora  below are perverse and liable to be set

-5-

aside.  It is submitted that HD CCTV camera which was supplied was defective.

8.       We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  This Commission has limited revisional jurisdiction.  It can  interfere with the findings of the Fora below only when findings are without jurisdiction or  are perverse.  This Commission is not permitted to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidences and substitute its findings on the facts established when findings on the facts are concurrent.  In this case, complaint had been filed with the allegations and averments that she had purchased two HD CCTV cameras and only one was installed.   Our attention is drawn to the receipt and the other documents vide which the said HD CCTV cameras were purchased and the receipt clearly shows that only one CCTV camera was purchased and that was not the HD CCTV but some other type of CCTV camera.  It is apparent that in the written version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party has taken a specific plea that complainant had not purchased the HD CCTV camera yet in her rejoinder she had reiterated that she had purchased HD CCTV cameras.  It is, therefore, clear that this is not a case based on no evidence or where material evidence has been ignored or neglected.  Findings of the Fora below are based on the cogent evidences.

-6-

9.       We find no illegality, infirmity  or perversity in the impugned order.  The revision petition has no merits and same is dismissed in limine.  Copy of the order be sent to the respondent also.