BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 512 of 2022.                                                                        

                                                            Date of Institution :    16.08.2022

                                                          Date of Decision   :    20.02.2024

Maa Luxmi E-Vehicle Private Limited, Plot No. 28A and B, HSIIIDC, Near Delhi Pul, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Director, Dipanshu Mehta son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Manish Saraf C/o Preeti Enterprises, Begu Road, Gali Karkhane Wali, Near Peer Mandir, Sirsa (Haryana).

                                                              ..…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

BEFORE:  SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                 

                    MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.

                    SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. P.K. Kochar,  Advocate for the complainant.

         Sh.  Deepak Monga, Advocate for opposite party.         

ORDER:-

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.                The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the business of complainant is manufacturing of E-vehicles. The complainant purchased/ got installed CC Camera alongwith DVR and other equipments in his factory/ unit from op on 16.08.2021 and paid Rs.1,04,750/- to op and op issued a bill/ invoice dated 16.08.2021 in favour of complainant. That op had given complete warranty of aforesaid CC camera alongwith DVR and other equipments for one year. It is further averred that just after the purchase, above said CC Cameras with DVR became out of order due to which there were so many black dots in the screen and DVR could not properly work and disturbs at the time of working due to manufacturing defect in it. That CC camera are also out of order. The complainant visited to the op so many times and narrated the defect of the above said CC camera’s and DVR and requested him to repair the same or to replace the same with new one but the op after checking it could not repair it and due to non working of Camera’s there is apprehension for any mishappening. It is further averred that in the month of April, 2022, the op repaired/ replaced some parts and equipments and assured that there will be no problem in future and further given warranty for one year from April, 2022. That op illegally charged Rs.35,672/- vide bill dated 09.04.2022, Rs.49,054/- vide bill dated 11.04.2022 and Rs.15,524/- vide bill dated 13.04.2022 and thus charged total amount of Rs.1,00250/- from complainant despite the fact that all the equipments were under warranty period. It is further averred that complainant has suffered harassment due to non working of camera’s and op is legally liable to replace the defective equipments without any charges but he has charged Rs.1,00,250/- from the complainant but after that defect in the equipment does not improve and became defective as it is. That thereafter also so many complaints were made to op but all in vain and ultimately the op refused to repair or replace the defective equipments rather misbehaved with him and has caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.   

3.       On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form because the op is not manufacturer of the CC Cameras, hence complaint does not lie against the op; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of op, that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against op and complaint is bad for want of non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties because manufacturer company of CC Cameras have not been impleaded as party to the complaint and that complainant has concealed true and material facts and that complainant is estopped by its own act and conduct to file the present complaint against op. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased 16 new CC cameras from op with NVR (New Process) whereas 16 CC cameras were already installed in the premises of complainant with DVR (old process). The cameras installed by op in the premises of complainant are performing in a very good condition and the same are still running very well on the spot. It is further submitted that op has given warranty only for service of the above said cameras for a period of one year from the date of purchase and manufacturing company of the product is liable for warranty of its product which is not impleaded as a party to the complaint, hence company will be liable for the warranty of above said cameras. The op has given cameras in four installments to the complainant, first purchased on 16.08.2021 and the warranty period has already been expired and company has not been impleaded. It is further submitted that op has provided service to the complainant more than 20 times regularly without any delay and to the satisfaction of complainant. That some times labour of complainant had made cut in the wire of the above said cameras and due to which joint was erected and due to this reason speed of the cameras became slow, further some times inverter failed and due to this reason cameras were closed due to non supply of electricity. The op is not at fault in any manner. It is further submitted that earlier building of the complainant where cameras were installed was on rent and thereafter they have purchased the same building and started renovation in the building and due to this reason they have installed cameras of their own by uprooting the same without prior information to the op. Hence, regarding defects if any in the cameras due to wrong doing of the complainant himself as well as its employees, no blame can be fastened upon the up at any point of time. It is further submitted that op never given warranty of the above said CC cameras alongwith DVR as alleged because it is the duty of manufacturer company whereas the op has given warranty for service which was provided to him from time to time regularly and without any fault on the part of op and even to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, the op cannot be held responsible for any defect of the above said CC cameras. That even the CC cameras installed by op are still in working condition, whereas complainant got installed some old CC cameras with which op has nothing to do with the same. It is further submitted that with satisfaction of service of the op, complainant again purchased 16 cameras from op on 09.04.2022, further purchased some other cameras on 11.04.2022 and further purchased one another camera from the op but he has not paid Rs.8100/- the costs of that camera to the op. That all the cameras are in working condition and they have pictures of the same which are enclosed. Even they have changed the company of the cameras by taking from his own house and even so many cameras of the op are not available in the premises of complainant. The complainant is under debt of Rs.8100/- of the op and he is bound to pay the same to the op but to avoid the same he has filed this false complaint. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of invoices Ex.C2 to Ex.C6, registration certificate of factory Ex.C7 and photographs Ex.C8 to Ex.C18. During the course of arguments, complainant has also placed on file report of Genius Computer and Peripherals, Sirsa as Annexure C1.

5.       On the other hand, op has tendered his affidavit Ex. DW1/A and whatsapp messages between the parties as Ex.D1 to Ex.C3.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.       From the bills Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, it is evident that on 16.08.2021 complainant had purchased 16 Cameras alongwith other equipments for installation of Camera in his building from the op for a total sum of Rs.1,04,750/- including GST etc. According to the complainant, the op had given complete warranty of the aforesaid CC Cameras alongwith DVR and other equipments for one year but just after the purchase of above said CC Cameras with DVR became out of order and complainant requested the op so many times either to repair the same or to replace the same with new one. It is further the case of complainant that in the month of April, 2022 the op repaired/ replaced some parts and equipments and assured that there will be no problem in future in the Cameras and further given warranty for one year from April, 2022 but op illegally charged Rs.35,672/- vide bill dated 09.04.2022, Rs.49054/- vide bill dated 11.04.2022 and Rs.15,524/- vide bill dated 13.04.2022 and thus op charged total amount of Rs.1,00,250/- from the complainant for repair/ replacement of the parts of the Cameras despite the fact that said Cameras were in warranty period of one year. The complainant has further alleged that even despite above said repair/ replacement of the cameras and despite payment of the above said amount of Rs.100,250/- to the op by the complainant, the cameras are not working and have become defective due to which there is apprehension of mis-happening or loss to the complainant. In this regard complainant has also placed on file bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, op has specifically asserted that complainant purchased 16 new CC cameras from op with new process whereas 16 CC cameras were already installed in the premises of complainant with DVR i.e. old process and according to the op the amount of Rs.1,00,250/- was charged by op from complainant for installing cameras with new process which fact is also proved from the above said bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 and it is evident that complainant got installed the cameras from the op with new process and so it cannot be said that op charged another amounts on account of repair of cameras within warranty period rather amount was charged by op from complainant for installing new cameras with new process. There is also substance in the plea of the op because had there been any defect in the cameras already purchased by complainant then complainant would not have purchased another cameras from the op. So, in our considered opinion the op is only liable to repair the defective cameras if any since it is the obligation of the op to provide after sales services to the complainant and to repair the cameras within warranty period and non providing after sale services i to the complainant by the op i.e. non repairing of the cameras amounts to deficiency in service due to which complainant had to suffer unnecessary harassment.   

8.       In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to carry out necessary repairs in the defective Cameras, if any and to make the same defect free even by replacing any defective parts free of costs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced.                             Member      Member                President                                                                                                            Dt. 20.02.2024.                                                               District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                               Redressal Commission, Sirsa