DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. 14 OF 2017

DATE OF FILING: 31/01/2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  04/06/2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :   Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT      :  Sri Biplab Karmakar, S/o – Late Nagendranath Karmakar, Manikpur Subhas Block, P.O.- Harinavi, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol- 700 148

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Animesh Saha, C.C.T.V. and all Securities Engineer, Netaji Nagar, Piyali Town, P.S- Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, Pin- 743 387

_____________________________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

Facts leading to the filing of the instant case are, in a nutshell, that on 17.03.16 complainant purchased one CCTV camera with other accessories of it for Rs. 24,000/- from the O.P for maintenance of the said camera. But, the CCTV camera failed to work properly within a few months of its installation and lastly it stopped functioning. The O.P was informed again and again over phone by the complainant. But, he paid no heed to the grievance of the complainant. Once he i.e. the O.P made the visit to the house of the complainant and solved the problem. But, within a few days of his visit the CCTV camera went back to square again. Now, the complainant prays for repair / replacement of the CCTV camera or for refund of the price of the said camera and also for payment of compensation etc.

Hence, this case.

The O.P is contesting the case by filing written version of his statement wherein he admits that he sold the CCTV camera to the complainant on 17.03.16 from his shop for Rs. 23,040/- only. After a few months, the said camera went out of order and he visited several times with technicians to the house of the complainant. But, the complainant did not allow him to enter his house for the purpose of repairing the CCTV camera and, therefore, he was compelled to return to his home. The O.P is still ready to co-operate with the complainant; but, the complainant with his adamancy insisted on refund of the consideration price.

Upon the averments of the parties, following points are formulated for consideration.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P guilty of any deficiency in service in respect of the CCTV camera sold by him to the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to relief/reliefs as prayed for?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf of the parties. Questionnaires, replies and BNA filed by the parties are also kept in record for consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. 1 & 2

Already heard the submission made by Ld Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written version of the statement filed by the O.P, the evidence and also the documents filed on record. Considered all these.

It is admitted fact that the CCTV camera was sold to the complainant by the O.P on 17.03.16 from his shop for a consideration price of Rs. 23,040/-. The complainant alleges that the CCTV camera went out of order and lastly it stopped functioning. That the CCTV camera went defective several times also stands admitted in the written version of the O.P. It is the version of the O.P that he made visit to the house of the complainant with technicians several times for the purpose of repairing the CCTV camera; but, the complainant did not allow any access of them to his house. So, from this very version of the O.P himself it stands proved that the CCTV camera went out of order several times. According to the complainant, the warranty period was two years. But, it is one year as per version of the O.P. The complainant has not been able to produce any warranty card before the Forum and it is for the reason that the O.P did not give any warranty card to the complainant at the time of sale of the goods. The O.P does not also say anything in his written version to the effect that he made over the warranty card to the complainant at the time of sale of the goods. It has been a fashion of the day that the traders do not handover the warranty card to the purchaser and if at all delivered, the warranty card does not bear any signature of the dealer. This is an attempt on the part of the dealer to evade the liability which may arise in future from the said agreement of warranty service. Be that as it may, non-delivery of warranty card to the purchaser by the dealer or delivery of the warranty card to the purchaser by the dealer without affixing his seal and signature thereon his glaring instance of deficiency in service on the part of the dealer. In the instant case the O.P has not delivered any warranty card to the complainant and has thereby made himself a guilty of deficiency in service. Non-delivery of warranty card to the purchaser by the dealer is also an unfair trade practice on the part of the dealer.

It transpires in the written statement of the O.P that the CCTV camera went out of order several times and that he also made visit to the house of the complainant several times, although he was not allowed any access to his home,  as goes his submission. But, one thing which stands established from the version of the O.P is that the CCTV camera went defective several times. The O.P should have attended to the defects carefully in order to put the machinery on right track. But, he fails to do it. That apart, goods which develop snags every now and then his unfit for the purpose for which it is purchased by the complainant and, therefore, the best course to be adopted now, as it appears, is to ask the O.P to do the repair of the goods free of cost, as it is within the period of warranty. In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The O.P is directed to take necessary step required for making the CCTV camera functional free of cost or any charge within a month of this order and, also to handover the warranty card for a period of one year from the aforesaid period for free service to be rendered to the complainant by the O.P.

Let a copy of this order be supplied or sent free of cost at once to the parties concerned.

I/ we agree                                                                                         President

                             Member                              Member

Dictated and corrected by me

President