Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/508

M/s Pathania Paper Agency - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/ JK Computer & Mobile Shoppee - Opp.Party(s)

Anmol Chaufla

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 508 dated 02.11.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 04.01.2023.

 

M/s. Pathania Paper Agency, Niggar Mandi, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Mr. Amit Pathania, aged about 41 years son of Surinder Singh Pathania, R/o. 738/7A/12, Street No.3, Chhawni Mohalla, Bagga Khurd, Ludhiana.                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. JK Computer & Mobile Shoppee, Near Old Sabzi Mandi Chowk, Building Amrit Public School Building, Opp. Dr. Jasbir Singh Clinic, Chhawni Mohalla, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Mr. Jaskirat Singh @Jassi Singh (Mobile No.98888-88682)

…..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 34(1), 34(2) (D), 35, 36 and 39 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Anmol Chaufla, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant firm deals with work of wholesale paper, card board merchant, stationery and general order suppliers at Niggar Mandi, Ludhiana. The complainant firm purchased new CCTV camera set i.e. DVR XVR Pro HD 8CH make Active Plus (Premium Sony Censor) 3.4HD Cameras, Secureye Power Supply, Pure Copper Wire, 2000GB Hard Disk, Wireless mouse, HDMI and Connectors from the opposite party firm vide bill No.236 dated 03.02.2021 for Rs.23,000/- and paid the entire amount in cash to the opposite party. The said CCTV camera set was installed at the premises of the complainant firm. At the time of purchase of the said CCTV camera set, the opposite party gave warranty of one year against any default and service of the said CCTV camera set. Thereafter, the complainant experienced blurred recording in all the cameras and poor lenses quality in the aforesaid DVR of the CCTV camera set which made difficult for the complainant to view actual footage and the purpose of installing the cameras in its premises became worthless. The complainant apprised the same to the opposite party many times through phone calls and whatsapp messages and requested him to resolve the problem in the said DVR but the opposite party did not resolve the problem despite number of request made by the complainant. Due to non-response of the opposite party, the complainant got checked the said DVR and CCTV cameras and came to know that the said CCTV cameras are of inferior quality of some other make “UniPixel” instead of Active Plus (Premium Sony Censor) and “UniPixel” is printed under the stickers of “Active Plus (Premium Sony Censor)”. In this manner, the opposite party has played fraud with the complainant by selling CCTV camera under the name of Sony by debranding the cameras of UniPixel. The complainant brought this fact into knowledge of the opposite party and requested to redress his grievance but opposite party flatly refused to provide any type of service under warranty period. The complainant has further submitted that the opposite party intentionally and deliberately with malafide intention sold the debranding CCTV camera to him with sole motive to cause wrongful and illegal loss to the complainant and wrongful and illegal gain to himself with motive to usurp a huge amount from the complainant. The complainant had to purchase new DVR and accessories from Computer Point vide invoice No.B445 dated 15.10.2021 for Rs.11,700/-. Thus, the opposite party has not only caused financial loss to the complainant, but has also caused mental and physical harassment, pain, agony etc. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant sought direction to opposite party to repay the bill amount of Rs.23,000/- plus Rs.11,700/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of 22,000/-.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party through registered post on 16.11.2021 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.04.2022.

 

3.                In support of his claim, Sh. Amit Pathania, Proprietor of the complainant firm tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 03.02.2021 amounting to Rs.23,000/-  issued by opposite party, Ex. C2 is the copy of another tax invoice dated 15.10.2021 for Rs.11,700/- issued by Computer Point,   Ex. C3 to Ex. C5 are the copies of snapshot of messages, Ex. C6 and Ex. C7 are the photographs and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant. 

5.                The dispute between the complainant and the opposite party falls within the definition of consumer dispute. The complainant based his claim on the basis of invoice No.236 dated 03.02.2021 Ex. C1 issued by the opposite party for purchase of XVR Pro HD 8CH, 3.4 Pro HD Cameras, Secureye Power Supply, Pure Copper Wire, 2000GB Hard Disk, Wireless mouse, HDMI and Connectors. As such, it is per-see admissible and its genuineness cannot be disputed. In this case, the dispute arose when the complainant experienced erratic recording due to poor quality of lenses in aforesaid DVR of the CCTV camera set. From Ex. C3 consisting of three pages, it is evident that the complainant through telecommunication mode (phone calls and whatsapp messages) approached the opposite party to resolve the above said defects. However, the opposite party failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as the product comes with one year warranty. The opposite party is supposed to supply and sell a marketable product, which should have durability of a reasonable and expected period. If there is a warranty on the product that does not mean that the life of the product will be one year only. The warranty of one year is given for the assurance that if any defect will occur that will be rectified free of cost within one year but that does not mean that the product will last for only one year. Further in this case, the cameras purchased by the complainant have become defective which means that the product sold by the opposite party is not of the required standard and durability. The refusal to redress the grievance of the complainant on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act that any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes:-

          (i)      any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person                which causes loss or injury to the consumer”

Moreover, from Ex. C6 and Ex. C7 photographs of the product placed on record by the complainant, it is evident that the opposite party sold inferior quality of some other make “UniPixel” printed under the stickers of “Active Plus (Premium Sony Censor)” cameras to the complainant. In this manner, the opposite party with malafide intentions sold the debranding CCTV cameras to the complainant with sole motive to gain wrong fully which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as defined under Section 2 (47) (i) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-

1. making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which-

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- to the complainant with a condition that the complainant will return all the equipments and instruments purchased by him from the opposite party vide Ex. C1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter, the opposite party shall pay aforesaid amount of Rs.23,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of articles/instruments from the complainant failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

7.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

M/s. Pathania Paper Agency Vs M/s. J.K. Computer                CC/21/508

Present:       Sh. Anmol Chaufla, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP exparte.

 

                   Learned counsel for the complainant closed evidence after tendering documents Ex. C6 and Ex. C7.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- to the complainant with a condition that the complainant will return all the equipments and instruments purchased by him from the opposite party vide Ex. C1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter, the opposite party shall pay aforesaid amount of Rs.23,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of articles/instruments from the complainant failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.