DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 403 of 22.9.2016

                                      Decided on:   4.10.2019

Iqbal Singh son of Inderjit Singh, resident of VPO Naneola, Tehsil and District Ambala (Haryana).

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Sumrav Products Co. through its Proprietor Manish Kumar.

          Manish Kumar, Proprietor, Sumrav Products Co. Patiala office: B-42/286,   Tobha Kashmirian Patiala.

2.       Hifocus Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (Hi Focus Security Systems), 3, Kwality Telecom, Sunguvar, Street, Riche Street Chindatripet, Chennai-600002                   ( Tamilnadu) through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY                                 

                              Sh.Vipan Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Manpreet Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Iqbal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  Sumrav Products Co. and anr. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that OP No.1 is engaged in the sale and service of CCTV Cameras, currency counting machine, bio matrix attendance, office automation and allied items and claims renowned distributor of OP No.2.
3. OP No.1 also claims that the products of OP No.2 being sold by it are of superior quality. It is pleaded that the complainant purchased CCTV cameras alongwith its equipments and LED etc. from OP No.1, vide invoice No.79 dated 3.7.2016 for Rs.20,400/- including service charges of Rs.1800/-. Invoice No.104 dated 23.7.2016 for Rs.1350/-, invoice No.105 dated 23.7.2016 for Rs.16000/- and invoice No.106 dated 23.7.2016 for Rs.4400/- including service charges of Rs.900/-.These products are manufactured by OP No.2.
4. At the time of purchase of these products, OP No.1 gave one year warranty for any kind of defect in the product. OP No.1 handed over temporary bills to the complainant overleaf of letter head with the promise that after the installation of the product at the house of the complainant the bill duly signed by OP No.1 will be issued because before installation of the products they issue only temporary bills.
5. It is alleged that it was dishonest and malafide intention for committing cheating and playing fraud. Inspite of the complainant has paid entire amount of the bill to OP No.1, it issued temporary bills without signatures and did not issue the duly signed bills.
6. It is further alleged that lateron the products were installed by one Happy having mobile No.7009717434, representative/employee of OP No.1 at the premises of the complainant. After installation, the complainant approached and requested OP No.1 to issue duly signed bills but OP No.1 deliberately put off the matter on one pretext or the other.
7. It is further alleged that within two days of installation of products, these stopped functioning. Due to this the LED installed by OP No.1 also stopped functioning. The products sold by OP No.1 are of inferior quality and are of not up to mark. Complainant immediately approached OP No.1 and complained about the defective products and requested to replace the products with new one but OP No.1 refused and threatened complainant with dire consequences.
8. It is further alleged that OP No.1 took away some articles i.e. one camera, one DVR and one LED from complainant which are still in their possession. Complainant also made complaint to OP No.1 through e-mail on 7.9.2016  and received revert on 9.9.2016 asking contact number of distributor but nothing needful has been done in the matter.
9. It is alleged that the products are defective and there is manufacturing defect. The OPs have cheated the complainant.
10. On this background of the facts, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.
11. It is further pleaded that due to this deficiency of service, the complainant suffered from mental agony, tension, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the CCTV cameras  with new one or refund of Rs.42150/-, Rs.40,000/- compensation and Rs.11000/- costs of the litigation.
12. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2. As such OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.
13. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OP has raised preliminary objections that the complainant has forged false documents in order to falsely drag the OP in false litigation. He has made invoices attached with the complaint and supplied to the OP at his own in order to cheat the OP and damage its reputation  concealing the material facts. The complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/-.
14. As per OP1, the true facts are that the complainant approached for installation of cameras at his residence. OP is working for installation of cameras and runs his  office under the name and style of M/s Real Tech Computer Services. Six cameras of Hi Focus company, one 8 channel DVR, one 40" LED without warranty, cable, HDMI VGA cable and installation was done. The total cost of all these products is Rs.42,150/-, out of which an amount of Rs.28,000/- has been paid to the OP in installment by the complainant. Although before installation it was told to the OP that whole amount  will be paid in cash. An amount of Rs.14150/- is still pending against the complainant. The price of 40" LED was Rs.16000/- which is non branded as per choice of the complainant himself.
15. The further legal objections are that due to thunder light in the sky and falling on the electricity cable, one LED, one camera and one DVR and hard disk were burnt. As there is no manufacturing defect in the camera, DVR, hard disk and LED, these articles damaged due to the natural lightening in the sky and therefore, these articles do not come under warranty period. LED from the first date was not under warranty period as the complainant opted for non warranted brand. Complainant has concealed these facts from the Forum.
16. It is pleaded that the complainant was called by OP No.1 many times and demand for an amount of Rs.14,150/-  was raised. Every time complainant linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Mobile recording of the same is available with the OP and same will be produced  as and when directed by this Forum. The complainant thrown all the above mentioned articles at the shop of the OP and asked him to repair it and he will pay the remaining amount after repair of the articles. The OP repaired all the articles  and did not demand any repair charges but complainant was requested to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.14150/- and OP will charge for repair of LED which is to be done by the technician of TV. Mobile recording of this conversation is also available with the OP. The OP started demanding his dues as a matter of right. Complainant started mal treating and threatening.
17. On this back ground of the facts, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
18. On merits OP has denied all the averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections.
19. In support of his complaint, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copies  of invoices, Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.
20. OP No.1 tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.OPA, copy of memo of goods supplied, Ex.OP1, copy of bill book,Ex.OP2, CD,Ex.OP3, transcription, Ex.OP4.
21. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
22. The ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
23. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that OP has admitted that the products of OP No.2 sold by it are of superior quality. Complainant has placed on record bills, Exs.C1 to C4, which prove that the complainant has purchased the products from OP No.1. The OP has also admitted that there was some fault. Of course as per OP the defect was due to sky thunder lightening  in the sky but the fact remains that the OP has admitted that the products were not working shortly after purchase. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is proved.
24. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant has produced on record invoices, Exs.C1 to C4, which are not signed by the OP. OP has produced another invoice Ex.OP1. Price of the product is not mentioned on those invoices. Complainant was not having any reason to forge the bills. The fact remains that the OP No.1 has supplied the product. In these circumstances the production/non production of any mobile conversation  has also become immaterial.
25. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that complainant is supposed to approach the Forum with clean hand by disclosing true facts. The complainant has pleaded that he purchased products vide invoices, Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.These are not issued by the OP. These are not under the name of OP. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the complainant has fabricated the invoices  to mislead the Forum. The complainant has admitted that the products were installed by one Happy and after installment the complainant approached and requested the OP to issue duly signed bills. From this averment, it is also to be inferred that the products were functioning properly when installed. The complainant has alleged that after two days of the installation of the products, the products stopped functioning due to defect but there is no evidence to prove any defect. Mere allegations cannot take place of evidence. OP has revealed in the written reply regarding telephonical conversation with the complainant on different dates. OP has also placed on record CD as well as transcription of the conversation Ex.OP4. This document sufficiently proves that there was no manufacturing defect. The complainant agreed to get the product repaired/replaced on payment. The complainant also admitted outstanding amount. Complainant has no where denied this conversation of the OP. Therefore, this version of the OP is also to be  accepted. From all angles, the conclusion to be drawn is that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.The complaint is abuse of the process of law which should be dismissed with heavy costs.
26. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
27. There is no dispute to the legal proposition that the complainant has to approach the Forum with clean hands and he has to prove his case by adducing evidence. The complainant has pleaded that he purchased certain products from OP No.1 against invoices Exs.C1 to C4. These invoices are not on the letter head of OP No.1. These invoices are not signed by OP No.1 or his agent. OP No.1 has placed on record another invoice, Ex.OP1 which is signed by the complainant and is dated 26.7.2016.Therefore, it is to be presumed that the invoices produced by the complainant as Exs.C1 to C4 are not issued by OP No.1.
28. The complainant has pleaded that there was manufacturing defect in the products purchased by him but there is no evidence to prove this fact. In complaint it is admitted that the products were installed by representative/employee of OP. After installation, the complainant approached and requested OP to issue duly signed bills but OP deliberately put off the matter on one pretext or the other.
29. From this part of the averment, it can be safely inferred that after the installation the products were duly functioning. As per complainant also he immediately approached OP No.1 to issue the duly signed bills. Thereafter the complainant has alleged that within two days of installation the products stopped functioning. This version is contradictory to the earlier part because in earlier part the complainant has alleged that the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the OP took some days to put off the complainant repeatedly.
30. The complainant has alleged that the products stopped functioning but there is nothing on record to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in any particular product. The OP has revealed in written version that the complainant agreed to get the needful done on payments and there is recorded telephonical conversation .OP has also produced on record CD as well as transcription of the conversation as pleaded by the OP. By this conversation the complainant has rather agreed to get the needful done on payments. He has also agreed to pay the outstanding amount.
31. Keeping in view all the factual position, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP.As such the complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.10.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President