No step from the complainant and O.P.

We have gone through the complaint petition and also the exparte evidence as recorded along with the documents filed by the complainant.

O.P. appeared but filed no written statement. Finaly did not contest the case. So exparte evidence was recorded.

Petitioner's case in short is that Dean of the college of fisheries, Lembuchera make contact with the O.P. eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. for installation of CC TV in all 6 constituent colleges spread over the entire North East Zone. 16 nos. of CC TV was to be installed as per contract with the O.P. The firm of the O.P. accepted the terms and conditions. The CC TV 16 nos. Was installed on payment of Rs.3,27,984/-. But those were not working. There were disturbances and 4 cameras were completely out of order. After filing of the case O.P. firm deputed some engineers for completion of the work but failed. Petitioner therefore, prayed for refund of the amount for the deficiency of service of the O.P. 

O.P. did not contest the case. Finally sent some letter by post.

On the other hand petitioner produced all papers documents, tender form, specification of equipment, quotation, camera model, correspondences with the firm by Dean of the college, sanction memo, other correspondences. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of Dr. Prasanjit Pal. 

We have gone through all the evidences given by the petitioner. 

Petitioner, Prasanjit Pal, P.W.1 stated that he paid Rs.3,27,964/- after  deduction of bill amount immediately after installation where the defects arises within the period of warranty  but after filing of the case cameras were repaired but 4 were not working. He admitted Rs.39,248/- remained pending for non restoration of CC TV camera system. 

In the cross examination statement on affidavit and evidence  P.W. 1 stated that 4 nos. of cameras at distance level  was not working. Out of that value of one camera was Rs.32,500/- and value of other 3 cameras was Rs.2,750/- each. 

The fact of payment by the college is supported by the sanction memo and it is found that Rs.2,32,856/- bill amount was claimed at one point of time. Sanction amount given for an amount of Rs.1,49,269/-. 

P.W.1 admitted that bill payment was not made as there was some defects in the working of the engineers of the company. Total 4 nos. of CC TV cameras were not working so petitioner is entitled to get value of the that CC camera. 

According to the witness Dr. Prasanjit Pal value of one camera is Rs.32,500/- and 2 other cameras were Rs.2,750/- each. So, total cost of these camera is Rs.41,000/-. Petitioner in the statement on affidavit however, admitted that out of Rs.41,000/- Rs.39,248/- was not paid. So this payment should not be made by the petitioner and petitioner will get back Rs.3,000/- as 4 cameras were not working. Due to the negligence of the O.P. firm petitioner suffered. So petitioner is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service along with cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.56,000/-. We direct the O.P. eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs.56,000/- to the petitioner for their deficiency of service. Case is disposed accordingly.