By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 17/12/2021, the complainant had placed an order before the opposite party to install CCTV surveillance system at his residential building. It is averred that the complainant had demanded to implement the project with low cost and without causing any damage to the residential building. As matter of reciprocity, the opposite party had agreed to comply demand of the complainant and even expressed willingness to disclose the technical details of schematic diagrams depicting route of cables and areas covered by each cameras prior to inception of work. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party had started installation work without informing the complainant and also not provided schematic diagram as promised. It is averred that the complainant was not availed in the place at the time installation of CCTV surveillance system. It is further alleged that there was no presence of technical expert at the time of installation. The opposite party had used unskilled labours caused damage to the building and unnecessary use of cables resulted increase in expenses. It is also alleged that the hard disk devices were kept in the office room not in the back side of the hall as suggested by the complainant. Moreover the devices started making unusual sounds after a couple of days of installation of the security system, causing irritation and disturbance to the family members and guests. Hence most of time system remained turned off. The surveillance was not viewed on the monitor. So defects were pointed out to the opposite party. The opposite party had expressed apology and proposed to take back the entire system or to resolve the deficiencies. But apprehending damages to the structure, the complainant demanded to rectify the defects. The opposite party did not take any step to resolve the problem. The complainant alleged that he had made several efforts to get rectified the defects of surveillance system. Even though a technician of the opposite party attempted to rectify defects, no result was found. It is averred that the opposite party had demanded more money from the complainant. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party has appeared before the Commission and filed version.
3. It is contended by the opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that, the complainant was acquainted with the opposite party as a customer and the opposite party had already installed a surveillance system in the apartments owned by the complainant six months back prior to the installation in the residential building. It is admitted by the opposite party that they had installed CCTV surveillance system on 17/12/2021. It is stated that surveillance system was in working condition since its installation and no complaints were raised with regard to alleged defects of the system. It is contended that the installation work was completed only after convincing the complainant through video call. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and no financial loss was occurred to the complainant due to the act of the opposite party. It is stated in the version that the complainant was working abroad and contacted the opposite party over telephone to install CCTV surveillance in his residence, consequently the opposite party submitted details of costs of materials , labouers and products. On the basis of online communication made with the complainant , the opposite party had visited the residential building and interacted through video call and given an estimate of Rs. 34,630/- to the complainant . After convincing entire cost and nature of work, the complainant had entrusted the work with the opposite party. It is stated that cables are used properly and no unnecessary expenses incurred to the complainant and cables are installed in accurate length. It is contended that reasonable amount was needed for installation of CCTV system in the four sides of a residential building. The opposite party had informed the complainant that cost of installation of pipeline was additional expenses. The installation of DVR was done in reception room on the basis of direction given by the complainant which resulted additional expenses for cables. It is stated that the opposite party had sent diagram graph of extent of running cables and the complainant himself had approved the same. But complaints are raised only after some months of time that too after return of the complainant from abroad. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant had convinced all the works done by the opposite party and payment was settled thereafter. It is stated by the opposite party that due to external influences the complainant had contacted the opposite party and made complaint of CCTV surveillance system. Then the opposite party had made convinced the complainant that the surveillance system was going perfectly without any defects. It is stated that there was no such loud voice originated from DVR Board as alleged and there was only a normal voice in it. The opposite party had even offered to replace the surveillance system if any defects found on it. But the complainant had made demand to install new cables in concealed manner without paying cost of it. According to the opposite party, he had visited the residence of complainant whenever he received complaints of surveillance system, but no defects were found on inspections. There was no financial loss sustained to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and the opposite party did not commit deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled for replacement of surveillance system or for compensation. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A8 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of estimate dated 17/12/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing total expenditure of the installation of CCTV surveillance system. Ext.A2 document is the voice of the opposite party recorded in Compact Disc. Ext.A3 documents are the copies of photos cable installation of CCTV Surveillance. Ext. A4 document is the voice of the opposite party recorded in Compact Disc. Ext.A5 document is the copy of whatsapp screenshots showing interaction between the complainant and the opposite party. Ext.A6 document is the copy of online receipt showing payment of Rs. 34,630/- for the purpose of CCTV installation. Ext.A7 document is the copy of notice sent by the complainant intimating legal action against the opposite party. Ext.A8 document is the copy of estimate/quotation of repair work done in apartment of the complainant by dB Craft Technologies. The documents produced by the opposite party are marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of CCTV wiring Diagram with CCTV image of the residential building of the complainant. Ext.B2 document is the copy of Compact Disc recorded the video of installation of cables and CCTV Surveillance.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Gone through affidavits and documents thoroughly . The Commission considered following points for adjudication of the dispute:-
- Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
- Relief and cost.
6. Point No.(i) & (ii):-
The complainant has averred that, he had entrusted the work with the opposite party for installation of CCTV surveillance system in his residential building. On 17/12/2021, the installation work was done in the absence of the complainant. The complainant has produced copy of estimate dated 17/12/2021 issued by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext. A1 document. The complainant also produced Ext.A6 document to show the payment of Rs. 34, 630/- in favour of the opposite party. It is argued by the complainant that the opposite party had undertaken to carryout installation with minimum cost and no damage would be caused to the structure. But it is alleged that the opposite party had violated the conditions and thereby caused financial loss, mental agony to the complainant. It is further alleged that the surveillance system installed by the opposite party was defective and not in a working condition. The complainant has produced copies of photographs showing the nature of work carried out for installation of CCTV surveillance system and marked as Ext. B3 document. The complainant also produced voice of the opposite party recorded in a Compact Disc and it is marked as Ext. A2 and Ext. A4 documents respectively. Ext.A5 document produced by the complainant also show the interaction made with the opposite party with regard to complaints of surveillance system.
7. On the contrary, the opposite party has denied allegations raised by the complainant. It is argued by the opposite party that the complainant had convinced and approved the nature of work done by the opposite party prior to its completion as he could contact the complainant through video call. Moreover, entire payment of work was settled only after the completion of work.
8. In the evaluation of facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the complainant did not adduce evidence to show the exact quantum of financial loss sustained due to the excess use of cables for installation of CCTV surveillance system . Even though the complainant had argued that the opposite party had assured of minimum cost for installation of CCTV Surveillance system, but there was no evidence available before the Commission to show that installation of CCTV surveillance system was done not in accordance with Ext. B2 documents or excess quantum of cables were used by the opposite party. So the Commission is not considering the pleadings of the complainant that he had sustained financial loss due to excess use of cables. The complainant has stated that he had entrusted installation of CCTV in his apartment with the opposite party and same was also defectively performed. The complainant has produced Ext. A8 document to show the repair work done to the CCTV surveillance system installed by the opposite party in his apartment. There was no contra evidence against Ext. A8 document.
9. The complainant had alleged that there was no presence of technical expert at the time of installation of CCTV and damages were also caused to the building due to the use of unskilled labours. It is further averred that device started making unusual sounds causing irritation and disturbance to the inhabitants. But at the same the opposite party contended that there was no loud voice from the device and it has been performed properly. It can be find that the complainant had continuously contacted the opposite party for repair work of the CCTV System. Ext. A5 document would show that a defect was persisted and the opposite party was acted with lukewarm response. Ext. A7 document produced by the complainant would also reveal that the subject products were defective one. Ext.A2 and Ext. A4 documents would show that the opposite party had admitted defects of the subject product. Moreover the opposite party did not denying the contents of Ext. A2 and A4 documents. So the Commission consider that the device was defective with abnormal noise negating the very purpose of CCTV Surveillance. The Commission find that the opposite party is liable to compensate for installation of defective CCTV Surveillance System. The Commission also find that the opposite party has failed to address grievances of the complainant. Definitely, the acts of the opposite party has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. So the opposite party is also liable to compensate for the same. In the light of above discussion, the Commission find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant and hence the complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 34,630/- (Rupees Thirty four thousand six hundred and thirty only) to the complainant as the price of the CCTV surveillance system installed in the residential building of the complainant . Also, the opposite party is directed to remove entire CCTV surveillance system from the residence of the complainant installed as per Ext.A1 document without creating any kinds of damage to the structure.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficient act of the opposite party.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the order till realization.
Dated this 30th day of November, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A8
Ext. A1 : Document is the copy of estimate dated 17/12/2021 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant showing total expenditure of the installation of
CCTV surveillance system.
Ext. A2 : Document is the voice of the opposite party recorded in Compact Disc.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copies of photos cable installation of CCTV Surveillance.
Ext. A4 : Document is the voice of the opposite party recorded in Compact Disc.
Ext. A5 : Document is the copy of whatsapp screenshots showing interaction
between the complainant and the opposite party.
Ext. A6 : Document is the copy of online receipt showing payment of Rs. 34,630/-
for the purpose of CCTV installation .
Ext. A7 : Document is the copy of notice sent by the complainant intimating legal
action against the opposite party.
Ext. A8 : Document is the copy of estimate/quotation of repair work done in
apartment of the complainant by dB Craft Technologies.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2
Ext.B1: Document is the copy of CCTV wiring Diagram with CCTV image of the
residential building of the complainant.
Ext.B2: Document is the copy of Compact Disc recorded the video of installation of
cables and CCTV Surveillance.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
