Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/100/2015

M/s.Prakashchand, Proprietor Prakash Thanga Maligai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eurovigal, Electronics Security Solutions, From Eurek Forbes ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

N.Jayabalan

17 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 18.02.2015

Date of Reservation      : 23.08.2022

Date of Order               : 17.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.100 /2015

SATURDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Prakash chand,

Proprietor: Prakash Thanga Maligai,

166, Pulianthope High Road,

Chennai – 600 012.                                                           ... Complainant             

 

..Vs..

Eurovigil,

Electronics Security Solutions,

From Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

92, East Coast Chamber, 4th Floor,

G.N. Chetty Street,

T'Nagar, Chennai-600 017.                                            ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. N.Jayabalan

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to set right the defect in C.C.T.V Camera erected by them or to replace the same with new Camera free of cost valued at Rs.21,000/- as per the warranty clause and to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the Complainant on account of deficiency caused on the part of the Opposite Party.   

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had placed orders with the Opposite Party for installation of CCTV camera in his premises at  No. 166, Pulianthope High Road, Chennai-12 and the price was fixed at Rs.21,000/-. The cost of Rs.21,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party on 25.03.2014. The CCTV Camera was installed on 27.03.2014 in the Complainant’s premises. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4800/- for the purchase of cable. The CCTV camera was not functioning properly from the beginning. From 14.11.2014 the CCTV camera failed to work completely. The Complainant preferred a complaint with the Opposite Party, the technician of the Opposite Party inspected the system and noted the problem in recording, due to defective hard disk problem. They demanded a sum of Rs.6600/-.  The warranty period did not expire so there is no obligation on the part of the Complainant to pay an additional cost of Rs.6600/-. The Opposite Party has a duty to replace the defective system free of cost as per warranty. The Complainant caused a legal notice on 11.12.2014. in spite of the receipt of the notice the Opposite Party failed to replace the defective CCTV Camera. Hence the complaint.

 

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Opposite Party is leading marketing company of extensive products which are essential in daily life like videophone, CCTV, Water Purifier, etc., for both domestic and industrial purpose. The Complainant has purchased the said “Euro Vigil Security System” for commercial purpose and he installed it in his jewellery show room “Prakash Thanga Maligai”. Since it is for commercial purpose the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is only a marketer and service provider to the customers. Since the manufacturer of the product is not impleaded as a party in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary parties. The Complainant had bargained to install the product at a lower price of Rs.21,000/- and the actual price of the product was around Rs.30,000/-. The Complainant told that he can get the hard disk outside for Rs.3000/- and do not want the hard disk provided by this Opposite Party which cost around Rs.6600/-. The Opposite Party told the Complainant that  the hard disk bought outside will not be covered under warranty. He agreed on purchasing the hard disk of “Seagate” and not the one provided by the Opposite Party in order to reduce the cost of the product. Even though it was explained to the Complainant that such hard disk “Seagate” will not be covered under the warranty. The Complainant insisted on bargaining. The machine was working in a good condition at the time of installation and when the Opposite Party went to the premises of the Complainant he found that there was no problem in the CCTV but only on the Hard disk and nothing was getting recorded in the hard disk “Seagate”. The product is not covered under the warranty period as it was made clear to the Complainant that the warranty will apply only if the entire product including the hard disk is of the Opposite Party. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 were marked.

5.   The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, document Ex.B1 alone was marked.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

On perusal of Ex.A-1 it is evident that the Complainant had placed order with the Opposite Party for the supply and installation of CCTV Camera at Mrs.Prakash Thanga Maligai, No.166, Pulianthope High Road, Chennai for a final price of Rs.21,000/-as against the quotation for a total sum of Rs.42,229/- and after discount of 10%. The Complainant had paid the sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of cheque dated 25.03.2014 bearing cheque No.437267 drawn on Canara Bank and a sum of Rs.6000/- by way of cash as found in Ex.A1. The Opposite Party had delivered the materials of the CCTV Camera as per delivery challan, Ex.A3. The contention of the Complainant was that the CCTV Camera was installed on 27.03.2014 and since then it was not functioning properly. On 14.11.2014 the CCTV Camera failed to work completely hence a complaint was made to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had visited the Complainant’s premises on 14.11.2014 and as per Ex.A-4 the Opposite Party had inspected the CCTV and found that the 3 cameras was working and there was problem in the camera clarity and recording in the hard disk. The Opposite Party had demanded a sum of Rs.6600/- to set right the defect in camera and replacement of hard disk, which the Complainant refused as the CCTV is covered under a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase and the date of installation.

        The contention of the Opposite Party was that the Complainant had not purchased the regular hard disk that comes along with the system which cost Rs.6600/- instead he bought a Seagate hard disk on his own to reduce the cost of the purchase. The Opposite Party had explained that the hard disk will not covered under the warranty and warranty will be offered only if he purchase the entire product from the Opposite Party. A sum of Rs.6600/- was asked by the Opposite Party to replace the Seagate Hard disk with a new hard disk, but the Complainant refused to give the sum and instead alleged that the act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service.

        There is no dispute that the CCTV was supplied and installed by the Opposite Party on 27.03.2014. From Ex.A-1 it is clear that there is a warranty period of 12 months from the date of installation. The defect in the CCTV camera occurred on 14.11.2014 as per Ex.A-4 which is within the warranty period. The Opposite Party in under the obligation to set right  the defect within the warranty period. However the Opposite Party content that the hard disk Seagate was purchased by the Complainant himself and which is not the product of the Opposite Party. It is unlikely that a reputed company like that of the Opposite Party will agree for installation of the Hard Disk procured by their customer at their risk. Moreover there is no document to show that the Complainant had procured the hard disk which was installed by the Opposite Party.

        The contention of the Opposite Party that the CCTV was purchased for commercial purpose and therefore this complaint is not maintainable will not hold good as the CCTV purchased by the Complainant is not used directly to carry on any commercial activity on large scale to fall under the purview of “commercial Purpose” and complaint has been filed for the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in supplying and installing a CCTV Camera, which stopped working within the warranty and hence does not fall under the definition of commercial purpose.  In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service by not rectifying / replacing the CCTV which stopped working within the warranty period .

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the aforesaid discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service and are liable to replace the CCTV  camera erected by the Opposite Party in the premises at No.166, Pulianthope, Chennai 600 012, valued at Rs.21,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3000 towards cost. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to replace the CCTV camera erected by the Opposite Party in the premises at No.166, Pulianthope, Chennai 600 012, valued at Rs.21,000/- by a new CCTV and to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, within 8 weeks from the date of the order.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 17^th of September 2022. 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	24.03.2014	Quotation form cum Receipt issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A2	27.03.2014	Cash Bill for Cable issued by Siva Power Electric Works to Prakash Thanga Maligai, the Complainant.
Ex.A3	29.03.2014	Delivery Chalan issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant
Ex.A4	14.11.2014	Call Report issued by the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex.A5	11.12.2014	Legal Notice issued by Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex.A6	13.12.2014	Acknowledgement Card signed by the Opposite Party.

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

-

Aqua Guard User Manual – warranty terms and conditions.

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT