Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that in his house two DVR machines having 4 channels and 8 channels are being run for some period.  But in place of that to run it 16 channels he intended to purchase one HIK VISION Company’s DVR machine and accordingly he purchased it such DVR on 17.10.2013 at a cost of Rs. 12,023/- being Model No. DS 7216 HVI-SH AND Sl. No. 425245506 and during operating the said DVR, he detected some problems such as resolutions problem, default option is not clear and real time file backup is defective.  But same are highly essential in the DVR and for that reasons on 18.10.2013 complainant informed the seller about those defects but seller did not help him.  On the other hand he was misbehaved by the seller and sent him to the distributor at New Alipore where distributor also behaved in such a manner for which complainant lodged a complaint to CA & FBP at Brabourne Road and CA&FBP also failed to mediate the said matter.  So, ultimately finding no other alternative and considering the defect and negligent manner of service on the part of the ops, complainant filed this complaint for redressal.

          On the other hand op no.2 by filing their written objections submitted that op no.12 is a service center and has got no personal liability to discharge any manner of service of his own.  Only he is liable to render service on behalf of the company Prama HIK Vision India Pvt. Ltd. and the said company has not been made party in the present case.  It is specifically mentioned that before the complaint CA&FBP the DVR was inspected in presence of the complainant and other representatives of the CA&FBP and after thorough inspection, op no,2 successfully proved that the DVR was not a defective and it was running well.  But complainant was not satisfied and he demanded for payment of the entire amount and for taking back the said machine and ultimately did not sign of the said order of the CA&FBP and it is also specifically mentioned by op no. 2 if the said DVR machine is placed before the Forum, op no.2 can easily be established that it was working in good condition.  So, the entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated against op no.2.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing this written version has submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the said DVR (16 channels) on 17.10.2013 and it is specifically mentioned that complainant never placed the said DVR to the op no.1 alleging any defect in the said product on 18.10.2013.  But complainant was asked that he was unable to understand the function of the said product.  So, op no.1 provided the number of customer care and complainant understood the function of the same and complainant did not inform about the defect of the said product.  So, the question of non-cooperation does not arise.

          Further it is submitted that complainant lodged a complaint at the office of Assistant Director of CA&FBP, notice was served upon the ops and op no.1 appeared before the concerned authority due to filing regarding objection and thereafter op no.2 appeared and op no.2 as per of written assurance on 02.12.2013 if there is any defect in the said DVR they replace the same since the machine was defective or not as allegation made in the complaint and moreover the entire allegation is completely false and fabricated and for which the present complaint should be dismissed as there is no defect in the said DVR.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also hearing the argument from the complainant directly including the Ld. Lawyer of the ops and further on overall assessment of the documents as filed by the complainant, it is admitted fact that complainant purchased the said DVR from the op no.1 on payment of Rs. 12,023/- on 17.10.2013 and it was Hike Vision 16 channels DVR being Sl. No. 425245506.  Complainant main allegation is that he required real time file back-up, automatic clear set up and automatic machine reboot but same were not enjoyed by the complainant even after purchasing the same and that is the main grievance.  In this regard from the written version of the ops we have gathered that about the system of the said DVR, it is found that there is no backup memory in DVR machine, usually the backup was done by hard disk and before this Forum the said DVR was operated by our Data-Entry Operator and after observing all the matter, it is found that it is functioning well and invariably no disk was used for which complainant has not got total result as desired by him for which he purchased it.  In fact the DVR machine is absolutely new machine, it supports high resolution pictures and videos.  But complainant is using some low quality peripherals which could not support to high resolution the DVR machine.  But peculiar factor is that op nos. 1 & 2 did not try to satisfy the complainant by placing the high quality peripherals for supporting high resolution pictures and videos with the said DVR.  But it is the duty of the op nos. 1 & 2 and when op ultimately sold it to op no.1 heas service provider to satisfy by placing what type of peripherals disk it required service but that has not been done by the op nos. 1 & 2.

          So, considering the entire fact and circumstances we find that no doubt op nos. 1 & 2 did not render proper service and fact remains different type of DVRs are functioning in different ways and several systems are generated by placing disk etc. and that procedure and manner of placing of materials had not been placed  for running the same in the house of the complainant and that is mandatory duty on the part of the seller and the service center and no doubt it was the duty of the ops to satisfy the complainant about his requirement when he purchased it knowing fully well that those services shall be enjoyed by the complainant on its use. 

          But we have failed to understand for what reasons jointly op nos. 1 &2 did not go to the house of the complainant to operate the same by placing the disk and other high resolution peripherals and if that is the cause of not getting such resolution invariably op nos. 1 & 2 ought to have asked the complainant to purchase such type of disk and other supportive peripherals for getting the actual result only to support that DVR.  So, in the light of the above observation we find that service was not given by the op nos. 1 & 2 properly but it is their duty to give such service to educate the complainant in such a manner that what type of high peripherals and disk shall be used in case of getting such result.  But that has not been done.  So, in the above circumstances, complainant must have to get all supports from the op nos. 1 & 2 for getting such result and the result about the run of the disk and in this respect of op nos. 1 & 2 shall render all positive result to the complainant for getting such pictures as required by the complainant and in this regard if any article like devices or supportive peripherals are required, same shall be supplied to the complainant to satisfy the complainant so that complainant’s intention to purchase the said article cannot be frustrated.

          Practically after handling over the said DVR through our Data-Entry Operator we have gathered that it is highly technical and it is a fact that the DVR supports high resolution pictures and videos and probably low quality peripherals are being used which is not supporting high resolution DVR machine and in this regard it is the duty of the op nos. 1 & 2 to inspect the said matter in the house of the complainant and to prove that by using high supportive peripherals the desired result can be achieved by the complainant and by using hard disk backup can be done and other matters. 

          So, in the above circumstances op nos. 1 & 2 are directed to go to the house of the complainant and to show the complainant that the requirement of the complainant can be satisfied if the supportive peripherals of high quality are being used and if it is required some peripherals or hard disk that shall be supplied by the op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally and to satisfy the complainant in this regard when op nos. 1 & 2 are claiming that there is no defect in the said machine.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed with some cost.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to go to the house of the complainant and to show the complainant that the defect as mentioned by the complainant is not at all correct, solve the problem only by supplying supportive high quality peripherals and by using disk and if any high quality peripherals and disk are required, same shall be supplied by the op nos. 1 & 2 including the hard disk and to make it as per note in the manual book and the packing box of the DVR.

          Accordingly op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to remove the so called problems of resolution default and resolution and real time file backup etc. within one month from the date of this order at the cost of the op nos. 1 & 2 and to submit such report before this Forum along with signature of the complainant in the said job work and supply of other materials by the op no.2 etc. and if it is not complied by the op nos. 1 & 2 in that case op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to return the entire amount of the said article to complainant after taking back same from the complainant.

          If this order is not complied by the op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally in that case op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with the price of the said article to the complainant and same shall be paid after completion of one month for making the said DVR up to the mark as per note of manual by the op nos. 1 & 2.

          For non-compliance of Forum’s order op nos. 1 & 2 may be prosecuted and further penalty and fine may be imposed upon them.