This case is filed u/s 34 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant has installed GPRS system in his private vehicle which was linked with his mobile phone on 10.10.2019 in order to keep track of the movement of his vehicle by paying Rs. 10,000/- to the OP Autocop (India) Pvt. Ltd. After installation of the said system it was found that the GPRS system was not functioning properly and failed to track the movement of the vehicle in proper time and place. Thereafter, the complainant by making several telephone calls and e-mails informed OPs about the said fact and requested them to rectify the malfunctioning of the GPRS system. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that on 26.09.2020 OPs admitted that the device installed by them was defective one but they did not take any initiated towards repairing the system. It is further stated by the complainant that OPs intended to send a technician to check the system and for that purpose they informed the complainant to bear the repairing charge but the complainant did not agree with the OPs as the GPRS system was faulty one from the beginning of its installation. Thereafter, the complainant being aggrieved by the act of the OPs filed this case praying for direction upon the OPs to replace the defective Autocop Application System (GPRS) by new one or to refund the entire paid amount along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
Notices were served upon the OPs in spite of that none appears on behalf of them and no w/V was filed. Hence the case was proceeded ex parte against the OPs on 27.05.2022.
Decisions with reasons
On perusal of the record it appears from the warranty card issued by the Autocop Track Pro that the complainant installed an equipment on 11.10.2019 which was under warranty till 10.10.2020. To prove his case the complainant relied upon the conversation took place between him and OP through e-mails.
The complainant claimed that he informed the OPs about malfunctioning of his device through e-mail on 26.09.2020 but no such copy of e-mail is filed by the complainant and only on 8th October, 2020 the complainant sought help from OP to change his log in password as he had forgotten the same by sending mail though no information about the malfunctioning of the said device was given through that very mail. Further the complainant informed the OPs about the problematic device on 10.11.2020 after expiry of warranty period of the same device. It is evident from the e-mail conversion that OP was ready to provide service to the complainant by sending one technician which proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In fact the complainant fails to substantiate his allegation by adducing cogent evidence.
Since the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation no question of granting reliefs arises at all.
In the result the complaint case does not succeed.
Hence, it is ordered that the consumer complaint being no. 416/2021 is hereby dismissed without cost.
Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.
Dictated and Corrected by
[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER
