Haryana

Panchkula

CC/210/2020

SITA RAM SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR.SANDEEP BHARDWAJ. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	210 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2020
Date of Decision	:	20.12.2022

 

Sita Ram Sharma resident of House No.2060, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, proprietor of Fasttrack integrated Security      System, Cabin No.22, 2^nd Floor, SCO-41-42, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana-134109

2.     CP Plus Aditya Infotech Limited, A-12, Sector-4, Noida-201301.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2021.

                        Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Authorised representative of OP                      No.2. 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant had contacted Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj(OP No.1) owner of Fasttrack Integrated Security System Company for supplying and installing surveillance system, having 8 cameras, in and around his house, with 21 days recording backup and one year warranty. The OP No.1 installed the cameras at his house and he(complainant) paid Rs.27,612/- on 18.03.2019 to OP for CP Plus NVR, hard disk drive for saving Cam recordings 4 terabyte, CAT-6 305 metre cable, D link, tenda with switch 16 port etc.  An amount  Rs.43,000/- was also paid to OP on the same day in cash as camera cost and installation charges but no receipt was given by the OP No.1. The problem of hanging & time lag in the cameras had arisen soon after the installation of surveillance system & the cameras stopped functioning from October 2019; several calls were made to OP No.1 but he failed to make the system functional. He even charged Rs.1,000/- for replacement of dysfunctional equipments. In January 2020, a major purse snatching incident occurred in front of his house & people gathered on the spot and police was called but since camera system was not functional, the culprits could not be nabbed. The complainant approached the OPs but OP No.1 kept on dilly-dallying the matter and did not rectify the glitches in the system. It is also stated that after the pandemic lockdown was over, the complainant again approached the OP No.1 who sent one of his agent at the complainant’s residence and asked the complaint to pay Rs.2,000/- to him as service charges. Again, when asked for the receipt, the OP No.1 refused to give the receipt. On 04.07.2020, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on its helpline no.8800952952, who sent software to the complainant on email. Then the OP No.2 too shed it’s hands off the duty and it failed to resolve his grievances. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  The OPs has also committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post as well as process server, which was received back with the report of ‘Refusal’, hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 07.01.2021.

                Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable and concealed the true material facts. It is stated that the OP No.2 is a distributor of electronic surveillance and IT products and renders all after sales/warranty services in strict compliance of the warranty terms & conditions. The OP No.2 received the intimation of the said complaint by way of notice from the Commission on 24.08.2020. It is stated that OP No.2 was never approached prior to the filing of the present complaint and therefore, the OP No.2 was not at all aware about the specifications and defaults in the goods claimed to be purchased by the complainant. After receipt of the notice from the Commission, the service team/representative of the OP No.2 contacted the complainant and visited his premises on 28.08.2020 to resolve the issue. It is stated that the service engineer of OP No.2 on inspection found that the CCTV Camera and NVR was working properly & the issue was found due to the installation of 16 Port Tenda 10/100 Mbps Switch. The service engineer of OP No.2 duly informed the complainant that the defective switch was not the product of “CP Plus” i.e. OP No.2 and further asked the complainant to get replaced the same with 16Port Gigabit POE switch, therefore OP No.2 is not liable for any malfunctioning of a product which has nothing to do with it. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the Authorised representative of the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-2/A along with documents Annexure R-2/1 & R2/2 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has tendered the copy of estimate  dated 02.06.2022 amounting to Rs.17,450/- and the copy of repair bill   dated 24.06.2018 amounting to Rs.17450/-,  which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’, for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the authorized representative of OP No.2 and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and OP no.2, minutely and carefully.

5.             The complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in the Annexure C-A contended that the surveillance system having 8 camera was installed by OP No.-1 at his house and  an amount of Rs.27,612/- was paid vide invoice dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure C-1) and Rs.43,000/- was paid in cash to OP No.1 as product cost and installation charges. It is contended that the surveillance system went out of order within warranty period and the camera stopped functioning from October 2019 onwards.  It is contended that the OP no.1 was requested on his mobile no. 9501096544 & 9814162484 as well as through whatsapp to rectify the defects in the surveillance system so as to make the same functional but the OP no.1 kept on dilly dallying the matter, and ultimately failed to rectify the defects in the system. It is further contended that the OP No.2 was also conveyed about the defects in the system by making a call on its helpline no.8800952952 but the issue was not resolved. Finally, email was sent to OP No.1 on 11.07.2020 asking him to rectify the defects in the cameras but to no avail and thus, it has been prayed that the complaint may be allowed by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             The OP No.1 has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2021 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             The OP No.2, who is the distributor of electrical surveillance and IT product, has resisted the complaint on the ground that there was no defect in the CCTV Camera and NVT as the same were found working  properly as per the report of its service engineer. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the OP No.2 contended that the surveillance system became non functional only on account of defects in the switch, namely, 16 Port Tenda 10/100 Mbps Switch., which is not the product of OP No.2. It is contended that the complainant was duly informed by the service engineer that the problem had arisen due to the defective switch, which is not manufactured by CP Plus. It is contended that the complainant was advised to get the switch 16 Port Tenda 10/ 100 Mbps Switch replaced. It is further contended that the OP No.1 is not authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and further, the complainant did not approach the op No.2 qua the defect in the surveillance system prior to the filing of the present complaint and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous and baseless.

8.             Evidently, the OP No.1 provided his services to the complainant by way of selling and installing the surveillance system. It is also evident that a sum of Rs.27612/- was paid to OP No.1 by the complainant vide invoice no.100 dated 18.03.2019(Annexure C-1). Further, as per unrebutted contentions of the complainant,  the OP No.1 has taken the payment of Rs.43,000/- in cash on 18.03.2019 and  as per whatsapp chat(Annexure C-4), Rs.2,000/- were taken as services charges from the complainant in the month of May, 2020. As per perusal of whatsapp chat between the complainant and OP No.1 (Annexure C-2) on several dates vide Annexure C-2 to C-7, it is evident that the switch installed by the OP no.1 was not compatible, which had made the surveillance system non functional. The Op No.1 failed to rectify the defects in surveillance system by replacing the defective switch despite the repeated request made to him by complainant through whatsapp and emails.  Moreover, the OP No.1 has opted not to contest the complaint, thus, the lapses and deficiencies on his part qua services to be provided to the complainant are well proved.

9.             Now, coming to the role of OP No.2, it is found that its engineer and technical support team had visited the premises of complainant in response to a telephonic call as received from the complainant about the defects in the CCTV camera and the said team, as per averments made in para no.10 of its reply on merits, had provided two applications links only to the complainant. Pertinently, the said technical support team of OP No.2 neither resolved the issue being faced by the complainant nor even pointed out the defects qua switch pertaining to 16 Port Tenda 10/100 Mbps Switch. The averments made by the OP No.2 in para no.10 of its reply on merits negates and falsifies its version that the complainant did not approach it prior to the filing of the present complainant. Further, the version of the OP No.2 that the OP No.1 is not its authorized dealer is also not found correct as bill (Annexure C-1) reflects the helpline number i.e.8800952952 of OP no.2. Further, the OP No.2 has not disclosed as to whom the cameras in question were provided by it for further sale to the consumers. Therefore, the OP No.2 was negligent and deficient, while not keeping its strict vigil on the service provider like OP No.1, who sells its product without any authorization. In view of the aforementioned discussion, OP No.2 cannot be permitted to avoid its liability in compensating the complainant. Therefore, the OP No.1 as well as OP no.2 are liable, jointly and severally to compensate the complainant for their deficient services rendered to him.

10.            Coming to relief, it is found that the complainant has got the surveillance system functional by incurring an expenses of Rs.17,450/- vide bill dated 24.06.2022, which is available on record as Mark ‘B’. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to be compensated by directing the OPs to make the payment of the said amount i.e. Rs.17,450/- to him.

11.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.17,450/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

 

12.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 20.12.2022

 

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President