| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No. 742/2010 Sh. Navneet Kumar S/o Sh. Dhir Pal Singh R/o 80, Ashoka Enclave-I, Faridabad, Haryana ….Complainant Versus Micro Technologies (India) Ltd. Futech Park EL- 225, T.T.C. M.I.D.C., Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400709 Through its Executive Director Meza 10 Integrated Security Consultants 501/389, 5th Floor, South Ex Plaza- 1, Masjid Moth, NDSE-2, New Delhi- 110049 ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 27.12.2010 Date of Order : 02.09.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant are that Complainant purchased a vehicle Mitsubishi Pajero for sum of Rs.21,00,000/- on 14.01.2010 and immediately placed an order for installation of a security system VBB-ELITE for sum of Rs.12,505/- from Meza 10 (OP-2) manufactured by Micro Technologies (India) Ltd.
(OP-1). Complainant paid OP-2 the said amount by cash vide bill
No. 077 dated 29.01.2010. - It is stated that OP-2 took four days to install the said product and within those four days workers of OP-2 damaged the new vehicle of the Complainant beyond repair. Entire panels of the doors, side bearings, dashboard and cabin lights were removed. The workers damaged the entire harness/wiring of the car and they were unable to fix the screws and PVC bolts of cabin beading, doors and dashboard, which they had removed at the time of installation as they had misplaced them. It is further averred that door lights and panels of the car are still not working. The upholstery, leather seats, gear knobs, floors, handles etc. got damaged due to the dirty marks, the Sun film is scratched and there are black spots all over the vehicle due to carelessness at the time of installation.
- It is next averred that despite complaints to OP-1 and OP-2 the problems still continue in the said system. OP’s system failed to work on Nokia E-72, thereafter the unit and internal battery started creating problem and also the system unit failed to send commands. It is stated that due to the deficiency of OP’s the new car of the complainant was reduced to shambles as some times the battery would get disconnected and the car created problem in starting, moreover complainant was unable to receive the SMS reply from the system.
- Thus aggrieved, Complainant approached this commission to direct OP’s to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment and also to pay Rs.12,500/- the cost of installation of the security system. Additionally, it is prayed that cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/- be also awarded to the Complainant.
- OP-1 resisted the complaint and filed the reply raising preliminary objection that the relationship between OP-1 & OP-2 is on principal to principal basis. OP-1 is restricted only to provide its products to OP-2. It is stated that no cause of action against OP-1 has been disclosed by the Complainant as there is no allegation of manufacturing defect in the goods supplied. Therefore, OP-1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present complaint.
- It is next stated that Complainant has approached the Commission with unclean hands as the Complainant has misrepresented that he has paid the bill dated 29.01.2010 to OP-2, against the cost of the product and installation thereof. However, in fact, it appears that Complainant has till date not paid the said amount to OP-2.
- It is next stated that in January, 2010 the Complainant approached OP-1 for installation of Antitheft Vehicle Security System. The said product protects the vehicle from theft and/or unauthorized use of the vehicle by alerting the customer through e-mail or by SMS text messages upon any unauthorized intrusion or use of the vehicle. It is stated that OP-2 had specifically informed the Complainant that the payment for the product and its installation being Rs.12,505/- would have to be made in advance and issued bill No. 077 dated 29.01.2010. Despite this requirement, at the request of the Complainant and on the faith of the representation made by the Complainant that payment would be made in due course, OP-2 in good faith, agreed to install the product and give the Complainant credit for the outstanding amount. However, the Complainant has till date failed to pay the said amount and instead has falsely misrepresented to this Commission that the payment has been made.
- It is further stated that since the product is Antitheft Security System, it requires a detailed installation in the vehicle. Such an installation is not external but has to be installed internally i.e. the various panels of the doors of the vehicle, side boards, dashboard etc. of the vehicle need to be removed as the censor wires of the product needs to be appropriately fixed. It is stated that upon successful installation of the product, the vehicle was returned to the Complainant in perfect condition, who took receipt of it after due inspection.
- Further, with particular reference to the allegation that the system failed to transmit SMS text messages on Complainant’s cellular phone Nokia E-72, OP-2 submits that the Complainant had been informed by OP-1 that same was due to a software installed in the cell phone and advised the Complainant to remove the said software in order to enable the security device to function efficiently. However, the Complainant ignored the advice of OP-1. As regards disconnection of battery the same cannot be attributed to OP-1 as Complainant’s vehicle being a mechanical product requires routine maintainence, timely service, repairs depending upon the use, driving habits and usual wear tear of the vehicle etc.
- In view of the facts and circumstances above, it is stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same deserves be dismissed with exemplary cost with respect to OP-1.
- Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on behalf of Complainant and OP-2 are filed. Submissions made on behalf of the Complainant are heard. As none appeared on behalf of OP-2 upon service, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte on 13.10.2011.
- It is Complainant’s case that on purchase of a new vehicle Complainant got an Antitheft Security System installed from OP-2 within 15 days of purchasing the new vehicle on 29.01.2010. OP-1 raised an objection that complainant despite promising to make payment of the product has failed to do so. Complainant has not placed any payment receipt of the same on record to establish the fact that consideration was paid to purchase the product. In absence of the same Complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- On merits, Complainant has alleged that OP-2 took four days to install the security system which were not required, thereby damaging the new vehicle of the Complainant. Moreover, the product installed was not proper, it was rather defective. On perusal of the trail mail appended with the complaint, it is noticed that the Complainant for the first time wrote mail regarding the defective product on 20.06.2010 i.e. after five months of installation and it is only on 27.07.2010 that the Complainant complained about the damages to his vehicle at the time of installation. It seems to be an afterthought as prior to this mail of 27.07.2010, Complainant has written four mails to OP, wherein no mention of any damages has been made.
- It is seen that though the delivery of the vehicle alongwith the installation of Antitheft Security System was taken in January, 2010 itself, no dispute whatsoever, was raised for a period of about five months, with regard to the said product or the installation. Therefore, no manufacturing defect or deficiency of service can be attributed to OPs. Moreover, as the Complainant has not placed any receipt of payment, he has failed to establish that payment of the Antitheft Security System was made to OP-2. Therefore, Complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(7)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
15. In view of the facts stated above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
