BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 26^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct OP to pay her a sum of Rs.55,317/- towards refund of the defective product, Rs.20,000/- for harassment, inconvenience etc., with cost of litigation.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had purchased a Eurovigil security system from OP on 28.05.2011 (wrongly mentioned as 28.05.2016 in the complaint).  Subsequent to that, complainant has been obtaining annual maintenance contract from OP on periodical basis.  That she has paid AMC on 27.09.2013 and on 31.10.2014.  That the said security system promises a list of features accompanied with assured services that require AMC to be paid every year.  That the security system consists of door and motion sensors which are protected against faults and malfunctions through AMC.  That the AMC states that a service Engineer would inspect all parts and sensors of the system every six months and repair and fix any issues to keep the system in working order.  That the door sensors have been faulty for over a year and the matter has been reported through multiple customer service calls, e-mail escalations and direct phone calls to OP but of no avail.  Even after repeated complaints, OP has failed to fix the said issue over last 12 months thus rendering the utility of the system useless.  This has compromised the security of the premises claimed to be protected by the system.  That after latest escalation in the month of May 2016, while the complainant was going on extended international travel, OP sent a technician 4 hours prior to Flight departure time of the complainant under threat of reporting the issue to the monitoring center.  That the complainant could not allow the technician to attend as she was in hurry to go over to the Airport.  Subsequently when the complaint was raised, it added relevant details of the complainant in piecemeal fashion leaving the security system unusable.  OP at multiple times in the past even after charging AMC on regular basis, failed to respond to burglar alarms.  That after multiple complaints and escalation, this continues to occur.

That as part of AMC, Eureka Forbes is supposed to check the functionality of the system every 6 months through site visit.  OP has failed to do this repeatedly.  That the complainant has lost confidence in the ability of the security system and associated service offered by OP to fulfill its promise as claimed at the time of purchase and signing the multiple AMC contracts.  That the complainant has requested to OP to uninstall the system and refund amount towards security of premises and stuck with a non-working product and also unable to buy an alternative product till this complaint is resolved.  This amounts to defect in product and deficiency of service.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.    

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version.  The sum and substance of the version is as under:

That OP has installed the censors on 11.05.2011 and annual maintenance charges was paid in 2014 for a period of two years and AMC was ending on 30.10.2016.  That OP had been regularly sending their service personnel-Engineers as per the contract and the system installed at the premises of the complainant was inspected regularly and if faults were found they were rectified by the OP accordingly.  That the door sensors have never been at fault.  That OP has attended all the complaints as and when same were made.  That the complainant is in the habit of sending emails and making multiple customers service calls without their being any defect in the system, only with an intention to harass the OP.  That in the month of May 2016 the complainant has intentionally called the engineers of the OP, in the last moment when she was about to leave the apartment to take a flight and when the engineers reached the spot and wanted to attend the complaint which hardly takes 5 to 10 minutes but the complainant did not allow the OP Engineers to attend the complaint on the pretext that she has to rush to the Airport and that she will call and inform them once she is back to India.  That complainant after return has never informed them about the same and no calls were made to enable the OP to attend the alleged fault.  That There was no defect or fault or any manner of shortcoming in quality and quantity, purity or standard knowledge and it were taken care as per the annual maintenance contract and even if there was any defect or shortcoming it is solely attributed due to the non co-operation of the complainant.  That OP is always ready and willing to rectify any defect in terms of contract/AMC.  That there is no any deficiency on the part of OP and the present complaint is made with a malafide intention to make wrongful gain by seeking refund of AMC amount.

For the above amongst other reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. Complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed her affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  She has also produced documents in support of her case.  OP in support of arguments made in the version filed affidavit evidence of their Assistant Officer and placed reliance on certain documents.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7.  It is not in dispute that, OP installed a Eurovigil Security System at the residence of complainant manufactured by OP during the month of May 2011.  According to OP, the said security system provides complete vigilance and protection to homes with an instant alert feature from burglary.  Further the said Eurovigil security system said to have advanced security feature which extends to notify complainant, her authorized friends, neighbors and concerned civic authorities about likelihood of a burglary mishap.  It is also not in dispute that, complainant subsequently paid the annual maintenance charges (AMC) from i.e., on 27.09.2013 and on 31.10.2014.  It appears that, the AMC which was bought on 31.10.2014 was to expire in the year 2016.  However, it appears that the complainant started facing several issues with the motion sensors etc.

8. Complainant claims that, the sensors installed to the door as well as motion sensor are protected against faults and malfunctions through AMC and under AMC the Engineers of OP are required to inspect all the parts and sensors of the system every six months and repair and fix any issues to keep the system in working order.  According to complainant they found that, door sensors were faulty for over a year and despite the matter being brought to the notice of OP through multiple customer service calls, email escalations, direct phone calls nothing could happen and OP failed to attend the same.  Complainant further alleges that, OP failed to fix the said issues over last six months thus rendering the utility of the system useless.

9. OP denies the allegation of the complainant that, the door sensors or motion sensors were faulty and they failed to maintain the proper functioning of the system in terms of the AMC and they have attended to the defects/issues as and when complained by complainant.  OP further claims that, there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

10. The complainant has produced hard copy of email communications made by her with OP regarding the complaints she has made about the defects and non-functioning of door sensors as well as the motion sensors.  In the said e-mail communications, we find that at times OP has responded to the complaints.  It appears to us that, Engineers of OP failed to attend to the problem or rectify the problem there by compromising with the security of the premises of complainant.  If the door sensors and the motion sensors are not maintained properly and if the defects are not rectified immediately the very purpose of installing the said security system is frustrated.  There is no satisfactory reply from OP as to why their engineers failed to attend to the defect/problem immediately after receiving the complaint.  The e-mail communications between the parties goes to show that OP has failed to respond to the complaints for months, this conduct of OP certainly amounts to deficiency of service.  Having collected requisite amount towards annual maintenance contract, OPs are bound to provide services in terms of the said contract and attend to the problem and rectify the same without loss of time.  For the reasons best known to them OP has failed to respond to the complaints made by complainant either immediately or within reasonable time.  Therefore, there is no basis for the allegations of OP that the complainant has filed this complaint within an intention to harass them or make wrongful gain for herself.

11. It is not in dispute that, complainant has expended around Rs.55,000/- for installation of the said system.  It appears to us that, the serious problem with the system started subsequent to 2014.  Since the complainant has made use of the said security system from 2011 to 2014 without any serious problem therefore we are of the opinion that, she is not entitled for full refund of the amount paid by her towards purchase of the said security system.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and usage that has been made by complainant, we feel it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- to complainant towards purchase of the said security system.  In her complaint complainant claims that, she has paid AMC on 27.09.2013 and 31.10.2014.  Looking to the fact that, the complainant has been put to great inconvenience and mental agony due to frequent failure of the security system, we feel it appropriate to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant.  Thus the OPs have directed to pay total sum of Rs.45,000/- together with cost of litigation.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

13.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.

OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) to complainant towards part of the amount she had paid while purchasing the said security service.  OP shall further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for having caused inconvenience  and mental agony to complainant due to deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 26^th day of February 2018)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 01.12.2016.

Smt.Divya Jain.

Documents produced by the complainants:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 04.01.2017.

Sri.Mahesh R.V.  

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*