Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/73/2016

Tiwana Oil Mill Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Industrial Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Harvinder Singh Sodhi

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.73 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 01.08.2016                      

                                                    Date of decision    : 17.03.2017

M/S Tiwana Oil Mills Private Limited, Sirhind- Patiala Road, Village Kharouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its accountant/authorized  person Gurjeet Singh.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Industrial Solutions, Opposite Bhola Sweets, Old Sabji Mandi, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its proprietor/partner/ authorized person.
2. Industrial Solutions, Sidhnath Complex, 1^st Floor, Room No.1, Bawa Gajja Jain Colony, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana through its proprietor/partner/authorized person.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                             

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                   

   Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Present :        Sh.H.S.Sodhi, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                             

                   Opposite parties exparte.       

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, M/S Tiwana Oil Mills Private Limited, Sirhind- Patiala Road, Village Kharouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its accountant/authorized  person Gurjeet Singh, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           On 03.08.2015, as per the quotation submitted by the OPs, the complainant purchased 28 pieces of CCTV Cameras i.e. 1/3 HD Camera Metal body night vision 50-60 M range along with its installation material, worth Rs.2,50,088/- from the OP at Sirhind, vide bill No.149 dated 03.08.2015. The said Cameras were under guarantee period of one year and the same were installed by the OPs at the premises of the complainant for livelihood, security and safety of the workers as well as the company and its material.  From the date of installation of the said cameras, the same were not working properly and the vision of the same is very poor and not recording any scenes. Even the cameras were used to be closed after 5 minutes and after 5 minutes, the screen used to become blank and it used to start again after 10-12 minutes. The complainant made a number of requests to the OP to remove the defect but to no effect. The OP had sent its mechanic on 2 occasions for removal of the defect but the result remained the same. The complainant also made a number of phone calls and even made complaints on email address of the OP but to no effect. The complainant through its director Satnam Singh Tiwana also served a legal notice upon the OP but of no avail. There is gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to remove the said faulty CCTV cameras and their operative system from the premises of the complainant and to refund Rs.2,50,088/- i.e. price of the cameras and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, pain and harassment suffered by the complainant.
3.           Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. But OPs chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs were proceeded against exparte.
4.           In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjeet Singh Ex. C-1, memorandum of article of association Ex. C-2, certificate of incorporation Ex. C-3, authority certificate Ex. C-4, copy  of quotation Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7, copy of bill Ex. C-8, copy of email Ex. C-9, copy of legal notice Ex. C-10, postal receipt Ex. C-11,  again copy of legal notice Ex. C-12 and postal receipt Ex. C-13, copy of ledger account Ex. C-14 and C-15, affidavit of Harpreet Singh Ex. C-16, affidavit of Sahib Singh Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence.
5.           The Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased 28 pieces of CCTV Cameras i.e. 1/3 HD Camera Metal body night vision 50-60 M range along with its installation material, worth Rs.2,50,088/- from the OP at Sirhind, vide bill No.149 dated 03.08.2015. The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that from the date of installation of the said cameras, the same were not working properly and the vision of the same is very poor and not recording any scenes. The complainant made a number of requests to the OPs to remove the defects in the said CCTV Cameras, but they failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said CCTV Cameras despite it being in the warranty period. The OPs have thus committed deficiency in service and caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the CCTV Cameras were found to be defective.
6.           After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant, written and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have time and again failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said CCTV Cameras despite it being in the warranty period.
7.           In view of above discussion we partly accept the present complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not repairing or replacing the CCTV Cameras. Hence, we direct the OPs to properly repair/rectify the CCTV Cameras without charging anything within a period of 30 days and if the problem persists again, then to replace the same with new  CCTV Cameras or refund  the amount of Rs.2,50,088/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However no compensation can be granted to the complainant-Firm in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case M/s Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company III(2009)CPJ 90(SC), it has been observed that " a Company cannot claim damages for mental harassment as it is a natural person". The complainant is also held entitled to litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-to be paid by the OPs.
8.           The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:17.03.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)      

 Member