PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 19/01/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 34/12
Between
Jimmy Joseph, : Complainant
S/o. Cyril, Proprietor, (By Adv. K.L. Joseph,
Highway Garage, Thevara Junction, M.G.Road,
Thaikkattukara, Aluva-683 106. Ernakulam, Kochi-682 015)
And
Fortune Holdings, 52/1582 : Opposite party
A1 Indivaram, Excel Park, (absent)
Fatima Church Road,
Elamkulam, Kochi-20.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased CCTV cameras and connected accessories for a sum of Rs. 1,01,195/- as per Invoice No. 1051 dt. 22-10-2010 and invoice No. 135 dated 22/07/2011 from the opposite party. The camera DVR and related equipments were installed by the technicians of the opposite party. The complete works of wiring, cabling and installation of the complete system were also done by them. Initially six cameras were installed. Few days after the installation, it was found that two cameras were not working. The technicians of the opposite party inspected the same and replaced the two defective cameras. But there after the picture quality became defective and there was frequent flickering of the picture in the screen. The technicians replaced the DVR The replaced DVR also was found defective after one month. Then another unit of DVR was installed. After eight months of installation the complete system was seen dead. On enquiry it was found that the opposite party has shifted its office to Ernakulam. On 10-10-2011 the complainant personally met the owner of the opposite party and complained but nothing was done. The opposite party failed and neglected either to replace the system or repair the same satisfactorily, in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant had sent emails dated 09-08-2011, 25-08-2011, 06-09-2011 complaining the defects in the system. The above complaints were not answered by the opposite party. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant has suffered heavy loss and mental agony. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs against the opposite party
i. to direct the opposite party either to replace the defective system with a good quality system of equivalent value or refund the purchase price of Rs. 1,01,185/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party with interest.
ii. To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for the loss, mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant along with litigation costs from the opposite party.
2. The complainant appeared through counsel. Despite service of notice of this Forum the opposite party remained absent. The complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Argument note was filed by the counsel and heard him.
3. The points that arose for determination are as follows:-
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective system in question or to get refund its price from the opposite party or not?
ii. Compensation and costs if any
4. Points Nos. i&2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased CCTV cameras and its accessories worth Rs. 1,01,195/- from the opposite party to use the same in his automobile service centre. After few days of its installation two cameras were found defective and same were replaced. Later the replaced system was not also found defective. Thereafter the system was completely dead. But the opposite party did not rectify the defect or replace the same in spite of repeated requests of the complainant.
Seemingly within a short span of time the system became defunct. Ext. A3 to A5 e-mail communications go to show that the complainant informed the opposite party about the complaint of the system on different occasions. Nothing is before us against the contention of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic and Another Vs. Addl. Collector of Customs (2006 KHC 472 2006 (3) SCC 721 ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 638 JT 2006 (3) SC 174) it has been held that supplier’s duly to ensure effective and efficient running of that system under contractual warranty and 1986 CP Act. Inability of the appellant to attend to deficiencies and mal functioning of the system soon after and mal functioning of system soon after installation amounted to deficiency of service.
The learned counsel for the complainant also relied on the following decisions to substantiate his case.
i. Jose Philip Mampillil Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd. 2004 KHC 289 2004 (2) SCC 278 2004 (1) KLT SN 118. AIR 204 SC 1529 SC (DB)
ii. S.K. Jhakotia Vs. National Insurance Co. 1994 (1) CPR 43
iii. 1996 (1) CPJ 313 NC
5. In view of the aforementioned reasons we have no hesitation to hold that the cameras manufactured and supplied by the opposite party suffers from manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective system with a new one of the same from the opposite party or to get its price refunded. Evidently there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in providing prompt and adequate service to the complainant which calls for costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/-.
6. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint as follows:
(i) The opposite party shall forthwith replace the defective CCTV cameras and accessories as mentioned in Ext. A1 & A2 invoice (dt. 22-10-2010 and 22-07-2011 respectively) with new one of the same quality and description to the complainant. In that case the complainant shall return the defective system to the opposite party simultaneously or in the alternative the opposite party shall refund the price of the said system as per Ext. A1 & A2 invoices with 12% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. The opposite party is at liberty to choose either of the above reliefs.
ii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Invoice dt. 22/10/2010
A2 : Invoice dt. 22/07/2011
A3 : Copy of e-mail dt. 09/08/2011
A4 : Copy of e-mail dt.25-08-2011
A5 : Copy of e-mail dt.06-09-2011
A6 : Copy of unserved regd. Letter
A7 : Copy of Regd. Letter
dt. 09/08/2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
