Order dictated by:
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Ms.Sanya Gill has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that she approached the Opposite Party for the installation of CCTV System and visited the residence of the complainant for survey and survey was done and the Opposite Party has given estimate. Opposite Party assured that the work will be completed within two days and installation will be done on the first floor while viewing screen will be on the ground floor. The representative of the Opposite Party came on 5.7.2016 and installed few cameras and DVR system and demanded a sum of Rs.20750/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20000/- and the Opposite Party has not issued any receipt and promised that the Opposite Party will issue receipt on the completion of the work, but on the next date, none came from the Opposite Party and the complainant made telephonic calls and further the representative of the Opposite Party has received Rs.8000/-, but the work as not been completed on that date and the Opposite Party promised that they will complete the work on the next date. Then the complainant further approached the Opposite Party and then they again came on 12.7.2016 and do some work but there was no clarity in any camera and further the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2500/- and further taken Rs.3300/- on 15.7.2016 and further the Opposite Party has taken Rs.8000/- in the month of July, 2016 to buy more parts of the CCTV and further they took Rs.4000/- on 23.7.2016 for the purchase of parts for making clarity in the cameras and to buy materials which the Opposite Party did not know earlier that this part is also necessary for smooth running of the cameras. The Opposite Party did not do the proper despite receiving Rs.45000/- from the complainant on the false promises and the Opposite Party assured that they will give the complainant warranty for all the products and also issue the proper bills for the parts and other equipments, but now the Opposite Party flatly refused to give the bills in the month of September, 2016 and also fitted local parts inspite of assuring that they will provide branded parts. The complainant made so many requests to take back the defaulted cameras and parts and refund the amount paid by the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not listening to the just and genuine request of the complainant. Vide this complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Party be directed to lift the defective cameras and its parts and refund the cost of the same of Rs.45,000/-.
b) To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension and for waste of time of the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.
c) Cost of the complainant be also granted.
d) Any other relief in the alternative which this Forum may deem fit and just be also granted.
Hence the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, initially Opposite Party appeared through its counsel and filed the written version contesting the claim of the complainant taking preliminary objections inter alia therein that there is neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has provided its services to the complainant as per his best possibilities. According to the requirements and demands of the complainant, the Opposite Party has issued estimate bill to the complainant and after approval and full satisfaction of the complainant, the CCTV cameras system were installed in the property of the complainant as per her full satisfaction and requirement, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is further a fact to be mentioned here that already instrument was installed at the fixed place and according to that the new cameras were installed by the Opposite Party on the said fixed places by using the wires already affixed with the old cameras in place of which new cameras were installed by the Opposite Party. On merits, it was admitted that representative of the Opposite Party visited the place and installed few cameras and DVR system for 16 channels. It is also correct that as and when the complainant made calls the Opposite Party as per the requirement and demand of the complainant provided proper services to the complainant as per full satisfaction and after fully satisfaction the complainant has paid requisite amount to the Opposite Party and whatever the amount has been charged, same has been received by the Opposite Party after giving their proper services as per full satisfaction of the complainant. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and affidavit of Sh.Tarsem Singh son of Massa Singh Ex.C19 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Sharma, proprietor of Opposite Party Ex.OP1 and sought the time for producing further evidence. But thereafter, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party nor produced any further evidence despite imposing costs and thereafter, the Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.6.2017 of this Forum.
5. We have heard the complainant and also perused the written synopsis filed by the complainant to prove her case and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, the case of the complainant is that the cameras were installed on 5.7.2016 and immediately on the very next day, these stopped working properly 8.7.2016. The cameras were sold to the complainant by the Opposite Party as day/ night cameras, but the night vision does not work in them and the complainant denied that full satisfaction was provided by the Opposite Party since the cameras were faulty. In fact, 16 channels DVR system were used for 14 cameras and are sufficient to support upto 16 cameras but even then the Opposite Party pressurized the complainant to buy 4 channels supply (Ex.C5) and even after that there is no clarity in cameras, hence it is proved that the cameras used, additional parts used are all sub standard. In the month of July, 2016 up repeated calls and messages, copy of which accounts for Ex.C2, the cameras without night vision were changed but within 2-3 hours, the cameras again started blinking, there was no night vision. Thereafter, sufficient chances were given to the Opposite Party to replace the faulty and sub standard products as the poor quality product can not function properly, hence the problem continued, chances were given to the Opposite Party on 5th, 8th, 12th, 15th, 23rd of July, copies of the same accounts for Ex.C2 and Ex.C5, but to no affect. Conversion of Page 2, 3, 5 and bottom of Page 6 of Ex.C2 proves that proprietor of the Opposite Party has apologized twice for poor service and still done nothing concrete about it. To prove her case, the complainant has filed affidavit Ex.C1 and also produced on record the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and also filed the affidavit of Sh.Tarsem Singh in support of her claim as Ex.C19. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to rebut the evidence and arguments advanced by the complainant, despite sufficient opportunities provided to them even after availing adjournments with costs. But none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party nor tendered remaining evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant nor tendered the costs imposed upon them.
7. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that there is certainly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and in these circumstances, we direct the Opposite Party to lift the defective cameras and its parts and refund the cost of the same of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension and for waste of time of the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated: 20.06.2017.
