Kerala

Idukki

CC/26/2022

Ashish Philip - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Propritor Guru Info Tech - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :4.2.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  26^th  day of  October,  2022

Present :

                    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                               MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                            MEMBER

CC NO.26/2022

     Between

Complainant                                        :   Ashish Philip,

                                                                 Firosh Forport Logistics,

                                                                 Thokkupara.

    (By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

        And

Opposite Party                                     :   Arun,

                                                                 Proprietor, Guru Info Tech,

                                                                 Panchayath Office Road,  Old Market,

                                                                 Rajakkad P.O.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant is the proprietor of foxtrot logistics, Thokkupara, which is a franchise of Amazon India and  his only means of livelihood.  Opposite party is engaged in IT field and its hardware business.  He has a service centre in Rajakkadu.  Opposite party had made complainant believe that he is dealing in hardware items of good quality and those carry long term warranty.  Opposite party had also made complainant believe that he was a Software Engineer having long experience in the field and also assured the complainant of prompt service, if the complainant were to purchase hardware from him.  Believing his representations, complainant had engaged opposite party for installing a CC TV Camera unit in his institution.  13  CC TV Camera  were installed by opposite party with CC TV units containing DVR and a 4TB hard disk on 24.3.2021 for which complainant paid Rs.70760/- towards price of components and installation charges.  However, to the disappointments of complainant, CC TV Camera units including                                                                                                                           (cont.....2)

• 2  -

recording components started malfunctioning.  There were instances of short term savings of footage and daily over writing.  Despite repeated requests by complainant, opposite party had not repaired or replaced the defective units.  On 24.10.2021 and thereafter, on following days, 3 android mobile phones and 15,000/- rupees were found to be missing from the concern.  Since CC TV unit was not properly functioning, complainant was unable to rely upon them for tracing out missing money and phones.  Footage containing visuals were found to be completely erased.  Though opposite party was informed about this, he had not responded by repairing or replacing malfunctioning units.  Finally, on 3.11.2021, opposite party came to the premises of complainant and after inspecting CC TV unit, informed him that one of the hard disk installed was totally damaged and this had  resulted in malfunctioning of CC TV.  Opposite party had given warranty for all items and therefore complainant had demanded replacement of malfunctioning hard disk with a new one.  However, till date, it was not replaced.  Complainant submits that opposite party had made false representations and installed poor quality CC TV unit which has resulted in damage to unit and loss to complainant.  There is  deficiency in service, misrepresentation and cheating on the part of opposite party.  He  is also guilty of supplying defective goods.  Complainant therefore prays for seeking a direction against opposite party to replace defective CC TV Camera and hard disk and also to pay Rs.4 lakhs to complainant.  Complainant also prays for an award of Rs.50,000/- compensation and further amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs from opposite party. 

 

2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.  Registered notice sent to opposite party in its correct address was returned as unclaimed.  As there was deemed service, opposite party was set exparte.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit.  Same is read in evidence.  Ext.P1 invoice was marked.  We have also heard the learned counsel for complainant.  Now the points which arise for consideration are : 

1)  Whether CC TV unit installed by opposite party in the premises of complainant was defective ?

2)  Whether opposite party had refused to honour the warranty given, repair or replace defective parts of CC TV unit ?

3)  Whether there was deficiency in service, misrepresentation regarding quality of goods and supply of defective goods from the side of opposite party ?

4)  Reliefs and costs ?

 

3.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          Complainant has alleged that CC TV unit installed by opposite party in his premises for which he had paid Rs.70,760/-, had started malfunctioning within 4 months of its installation.  His unchallenged evidence would further reveal that malfunctioning                                                                                                                (cont...3)

• 3  -

was due to defective hard disk.  It is further proved that despite requests by complainant, opposite party has not repaired the CC TV unit by replacing the defective hard disk.  It is also proved that misrepresentations were made with regard to quality of CC TV unit installed and sale of goods of inferior quality which were passed of as  good quality ones.  There is deficiency in service, misrepresentation and passing of inferior goods in place of good ones and sale of defective goods to complainant.  Therefore, complainant is entitled to get a direction from this Commission for replacement of defective unit with a new one.  Further compensation of Rs.4 lakhs prayed for appears to be  excessive.    As far as compensation of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, we are of the view that under the circumstances of the case, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- will suffix along with an award of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

4.  Point No.4:

 

          In the result, complaint is allowed in part with costs upon the following terms :

 

1.  Opposite party is directed to replace defective CCTV unit with a new unit without defects within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complainant shall be entitled to realise  Rs.70,760/- from opposite party with interest @ 12% from the date of petition i.e., 03/02/2022 till payment/realization.

 

2.  Opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of this order until payment or realisation.

 

3.  He shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to complainant within 30 days of this order.

 

          In case of noncompliance or non-payment by opposite party, complainant will be entitled to realise the amount ordered, by proceeding against opposite party in accordance with the provisions of this Act.  Complainant shall take back extra sets of copies produced by him.

 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the    26th    day of  October, 2022

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                        Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                              (cont...4)

• 4  -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        -   Ashish.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  copy of tax invoice dated 24.3.2021.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                                                                                          Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR