DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 643
Instituted on: 04.12.2017
Decided on: 09.05.2018
Karam Chand Sharma son of Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, resident of Sardar Colony, Street No.2, College Road, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Future Technologies, Shop No.3, Sainik Rest House Complex, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. CP Plus (India’s No.1 CCTV Brand) Corp. Office: Aditya Infotech Limited, A-12, Sector 4, Noida (Delhi-NCR) through its Chairman.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri Vikas Elisha, Adv.
For OP NO.2. : Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Karam Chand Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 18.2.2017, the complainant approached OP number 1 and purchased four CCTV cameras of CP plus with other equipments like DVR etc. for Rs.16832/- vide bill number 112 dated 18.2.2017, of which the OP number 1 gave two years warranty (i.e. one year on behalf of seller and one year on behalf of the manufacturer). The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2017, one of the above said four cameras stopped working as the night vision of the said camera did not work properly, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 and told him about non working of the said camera. The OP number 1 removed the camera and on 13.11.2017 the OP number 1 installed the said camera saying that he had repaired the same and now it would work properly. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant found that at the time of night the camera was not working as it was working earlier and there was no improvement in the camera. The complainant as such was compelled to again purchase a new camera for Rs.2000/- from OP number 1 vide bill number 117 dated 21.11.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of one camera i.e. Rs.2000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Op number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the camera, DVR, hard disk and power supply from the OP number 1 with the manufacturer warranty. It is also admitted that the in the month of October, 2017, the complainant approached OP number 1 that the camera was not working properly and after removing the camera from the premises of the complainant, the OP number 1 sent the same to OP number 2 and the defect in the camera was removed by OP number 2 and delivered to OP number 1. Further case of OP number 1 is that on 13.11.2017 the OP number 1 installed the said camera after repairing and it is denied that the camera is not working properly. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant again complained about the non working of the camera, as such OP number 1 again went to the house of the complainant and checked the same and the same was working properly in a day mode as well as in night mode. It is further stated that the OP number 1 told the complainant that if he is not satisfied, then he can again send the camera to OP number 2, but the complainant refused to do so. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the complainant never approached OP number 2 directly with his grievance. Although OP number 2 approached by OP number 1 on November 1, 2017 though a phone call where he requested to remove the defect in the HDCVI camera and thereafter delivered the said camera to OP number 2 at its branch located at Ludhiana and the same was duly delivered to OP number 1 on 11.11.2017. The complaint of the complainant is said to be false. On merits, it is admitted that on November 1, 2017 though a phone call where he requested to remove the defect in the HDCVI camera and thereafter delivered the said camera to OP number 2 at its branch located at Ludhiana and the same was duly delivered to OP number 1 on 11.11.2017 and thereafter the same was installed, but the complainant was again asking for better quality. The allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and affidavit closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with Annexure I and Annexure II and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the CCTV cameras and other products in question for Rs.16,832/- by the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the cameras in question on 18.02.2017 which was having one year warranty and one of the camera developed defects during the warranty period and as such the same was removed by the OP number 1 and sent to OP number 2 for carrying the necessary repairs, but even then after repairs, it did not work properly and as such the complaint was again lodged with the OP number 1 for getting the defects removed there from, but the OPs failed to remove the defects therein and to make in working order. It is on the record that one of the camera developed defects during the warranty period and the complainant even filed the complaint before this Forum during the warranty period. It is worth mentioning here that since the complainant was constrained to purchase a new camera from OP number 1 vide bill dated 21.11.2017, Ex.C-2 for Rs.2000/- and it further corroborates the allegations of the complainant that the camera was defective one, which the OPs failed to replace it with a new one. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice by supplying the complainant a defective camera which was beyond repairs. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves refund of the amount so spent by him on the purchase of the one camera, the cost of which is Rs.2000/- only.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- being the cost of one camera. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. However, it is made clear that the OPs are at liberty to take back the defective camera from this Forum under proper receipt.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 9, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
