This is a complaint made by Mrs. Jhuma Ghosh, W/o Dr. Ananga Mohan Panja of 10/C, Central Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032 against Dipankar Roy, Security Engineer and Solutions, praying for a direction upon the OP to change the defective cameras and also to install new cameras and provide necessary services to the Complainant.  Complainant has further prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant approached the OP for the purpose of installation of Close Circuit Television (hereinafter referred to as CCTV) system at her residence from the roof top up to the ground floor on 09-03-2015.  The OP agreed to install CCTV system along with 13 nos. cameras, DVR Monitor, Cabins and necessary accessories.  Accordingly, CCTV was installed and the Complainant paid Rs. 87,000/- for this purpose.  Allegedly, although the Complainant paid Rs. 87,000/- to the OP, the latter issued two receipts worth Rs. 47,635/- and Rs. 12,000/-.

Post installation, it was found that the cameras were defective and the same were not working properly.  So, the Complainant filed this case.

On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notice was served upon the OP.  However, OP did not turn up to defend its case.  So, the case was heard ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed photocopy of a receipt showing payment of Rs. 47,635/- and another photocopy of a warranty certificate.  Complainant has filed a petition stating that her complaint be treated as Affidavit-in-Chief.

Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

On perusal of the prayer portion of the petition of complaint, more specifically, prayer nos. (a), (b) and (c), it appears that the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to change the defective cameras.  When the Complainant has come up with such a prayer, at the same time, prayer for installation of new cameras does not appear to hold good as the same is at odd with the first prayer.  Similarly, direction upon the OP to provide necessary services to the Complainant also appears vague.  It is because, in terms of the warranty certificate, the OP is anyway duty bound to render all the necessary services to the Complainant. 

So, this is a fit case, where necessary direction can be given to the OP to take necessary steps in order to repair the defective cameras, else change the same.  Further, it appears that if a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost is awarded, ends of justice would be served.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/155/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP.  OP is directed, within two months hence, to either change the defective cameras or install new defect free cameras so as to ensure smooth/hassle free functioning of the CCTV system.  OP is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation and litigation cost within the afore mentioned period.