BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN                                           :  PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                                     : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 212/2021  (Filed on 15.07.2021)

ORDER DATED: 19.06.2024

Complainant:

Sivakumari Prabha, C/o M. Prakash, NMC No. 6/133-C, Nandanam, Near Koottappana Mahadeva Temple, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram-695 121.

(Party in person)

Opposite party:

Deepu S., Proprietor, Focus Surveillance & Security System, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram-20.

ORDER

SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN:  PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:

          2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  After accepting the notice, the opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. 

          3.  The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant entrusted the opposite party to install 6 CCTV outdoor cameras at the residence of the complainant.  Towards consideration the complainant has paid Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite party.  On 15.08.2019 the opposite party installed four CCTV outdoor cameras and two CCTV indoor cameras instead of installing 6 CCTV outdoor cameras.  In spite of repeated phone calls and requests made by the complainant, the opposite party failed to replace the indoor cameras with outdoor cameras.  Hence according to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission to redress the grievances. 

          4.  The opposite party filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.  The opposite party admitted that one Mr. Prakash contacted him for installing CCTV cameras at his residential premises and accordingly the opposite party prepared estimate and the same was approved by the said Prakash.  The said Prakash requested the opposite party to install 6 CCTV outdoor cameras.  Subsequently he has altered his requirement and requested the opposite party to install 4 CCTV outdoor cameras and 2 CCTV indoor cameras.  In pursuant to that request, the opposite party submitted an estimate of Rs. 33,800/-.  After going through the estimate the said Prakash told the opposite party that he does not require these much costly cameras and accordingly as per his request the opposite party modified the estimate and an estimate for Rs. 30,000/- was handed over to the said Prakash.  The opposite party has received only Rs. 30,000/- from the said Prakash.  The opposite party further submitted that after completing the installation the said customer has not contacted the opposite party for any subsequent requirement or for its repair.  All those cameras installed at the premises of the said Prakash were having a warranty for a period of one year.  The opposite party further submitted that during the warranty period no complaint was raised by the customer.  If the customer has raised any sort of complaint, the same would have been rectified free of cost during the warranty period and the complaints subsequent to the warranty period would have been attended on payment of service charges.  The allegation of the customer that he has contacted the opposite party several occasions and the opposite party refused to attend the telephone calls are only baseless allegations raised before this Commission.  According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

          5.  The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 from the side of the complainant.  Though the opposite party filed proof affidavit no documents were produced from the side of the opposite party. 

6.  Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to costs?

7.  Issues (i) to (iii): Heard both sides.  Perused the affidavits, documents and records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant’s brother Mr. Prakash filed proof affidavit as the authorized person of the complainant and Exts. P1 and P2 were produced and marked.  Ext. P1 is the authorization letter signed by the complainant Sivakumari Prabha authorizing her brother Mr. Prakash to represent her before the Consumer Commission for conducting the Consumer Complaint.  Ext. P2 is the invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s brother Prakash for a sum of Rs. 33,800/-.  The complainant has produced the original of Ext. P2 and the same was returned to the complainant after verification. 

8.  The main allegation of the complainant is that instead of installing 6 CCTV outdoor cameras the opposite party installed only 4 CCTV outdoor cameras and two indoor cameras.  The further allegation is that in spite of repeated telephone calls and requests made by the complainant, the opposite party failed to rectify the mistake committed by him and according to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  On the other hand, the opposite party contended that the initial order for installation of 6 CCTV outdoor cameras and subsequently the complainant’s brother altered the idea and requested the opposite party to install only four outdoor cameras and 2 indoor cameras and accordingly the opposite party has installed the same and hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of both parties.  It is pertinent to note that there is no written agreement between the complainant and the opposite party in respect of the installation of CCTV cameras at the residential premises of the complainant.  But, the opposite party has admitted that the complainant’s brother has engaged him for installing 6 outdoor cameras and he has handed over the estimate for the same.  The further contention of the opposite party is that subsequently the complainant’s brother Prakash made alterations to his ideas and accordingly the opposite party was asked to install four CCTV outdoor cameras and two indoor cameras.  The payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the complainant to the opposite party is also admitted by the opposite party.  Hence the admitted facts in this case are that the complainant has entrusted to the opposite party for the installation of CCTV cameras at the residential premises of the complainant and the receipt of Rs. 30,000/- by the opposite party from the complainant.  The dispute is whether the installation is in respect of 6 CCTV outdoor cameras or four CCTV outdoor cameras and two CCTV indoor cameras are the points to be considered by this Commission for adjudication of this complaint.  As the opposite party admitted that initially he was asked to install 6 outdoor cameras the burden is on the part of the opposite party to prove that subsequently there was a proposal from the side of the complainant to the effect that the opposite party has to install only four outdoor cameras and the remaining two indoor cameras.  Except version and affidavit there is no other documentary or oral evidence to substantiate that there was subsequent alteration with regard to the proposal made by the complainant.  Another allegation raised by the complainant is that the cameras installed by the opposite party are of inferior quality. To prove that aspect the complainant has not adduced any evidence.  Moreover, the complainant has got no case that the cameras installed by the opposite party is defective or that he has got any complaint of mal-functioning.  The only point is that the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the two indoor cameras and the same was not done by the opposite party.  This being the situation, we find that the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the inferior quality of the product and that the opposite party has accepted excess amount are not proved by the complainant by adducing cogent evidence.  At the same time, the opposite party failed to establish that he was asked to install only 4 CCTV outdoor cameras and the remaining two indoor cameras.  So the only deficiency in service which can be attributed against the opposite party is that he has not replaced the two indoor cameras with outdoor cameras. 

9.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant has got no case that the indoor cameras installed by the opposite party are not in working condition.  Hence we cannot accept the allegations put forward by the complainant that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  In the absence of any evidence to establish that there was a direction from the complainant to install only 4 CCTV outdoor cameras and the remaining 2 indoor cameras, we find that the contention of the opposite party to that effect also cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence.  As the opposite party admitted that initially he was asked to install 6 CCTV outdoor cameras and in the absence of any evidence to establish that he was subsequently asked to install only 4 outdoor cameras, we find that the action on the part of the opposite party in not replacing the two indoor cameras amounts to deficiency in service.  In view of the above discussion and on the basis of the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts. P1 & P2 we find that the complainant has partially succeeded in establishing her case against the opposite party.  From the available evidence, it is evident that the complainant has suffered inconvenience due to the act of the opposite party and hence we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant due to the act of the opposite party.  In view of the above discussion, we find that this complaint is to be partly allowed in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,600/- (Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred only) being the cost of two bullet cameras (outdoor cameras) along with Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) towards the costs of these proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of June 2024.

                       Sd/-

          P.V. JAYARAJAN              : PRESIDENT

                  Sd/-

       PREETHA G. NAIR           : MEMBER

                 Sd/-

      VIJU V.R                              : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 212/2021

APPENDIX

I        COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

II       COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

IV      OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                   NIL

                                                Sd/-

                                                    PRESIDENT

jb