BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gautamjit Sharma s/o Inderjit Sharma, Prop. M/s. Gyatri Industries, 115-A, EPIP, Phase-I, Har Majri, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

M/s. Abrol Enterprises, SCO No.261, 2^nd Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

                                                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

                   SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.R.S.Bhatia, Adv. for complainant.

OP exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

                   Succinctly put, the complainant got installed CCTVs, DVR and other equipments, through OP at his factory premises on payment of Rs.31,050/- on 5.10.2008 vide Ann.C-1, in order to have vigilance over the production and security of his Unit.  However, the said equipments did not function properly from the very beginning and there was no clarity in the monitor/TV and instruments were also not recording the footage as required.  This was brought to the notice of OP, who advised him to purchase another TV, which too was purchased on 8.12.2009 vide Ann.C-2, but even then, there was no clarity of pictures.  Finally, the OP took away all the CCTVs, DVR and other equipments for rectifying the defects and reinstallation.  Thereafter the complainant made a number of calls to OP and even personally visited them requesting them to reinstall the said equipments but it did not.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OP in this respect but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot. 

2.                      OP did not turn up despite having been duly served with the notice.  Therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. 

3.                      Learned Counsel for the complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.                      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.                      Annexure C-1 is the retail/VAT invoice vide which the equipment CCTV alongwith DVR, revolving stand, supply box and HDD was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.31,050/-. According to the complainant the above said equipment which was installed at the factory premises did not work well from the day one.  It is his grouse that there was no clarity in the monitor and the equipment was also not recording the footage.  Therefore the complainant called the OP to get the same rectified. The OP sent his worker on a number of occasions to set the things right but they could not remove the defects.  Then on the suggestion of the OP that there was some problem with the TV, the complainant purchased a new TV on 8.12.2009 at a cost of Rs.7,040/- vide Annexure C-2.  It is the contention of the complainant that even thereafter, there was no clarity of picture and the worker sent by the OP admitted that there was some serious fault in the equipment and it could only be rectified in the workshop.  The equipment was sent to the workshop of the OP on 4.04.2009 but till date the OP has neither repaired the said equipment nor has refunded the amount paid to him for purchase of the said equipment.  Now the OP is not even attending the telephone calls made by the complainant. Since the equipment is not working well it is the duty of the OP to repair it or replace it during the warranty period but the OP did not even appear after service and was proceeded against exparte which shows he had nothing to say against the claim of the complainant.

6.                      In our opinion it was the responsibility of the OP to satisfy the complainant after rectifying the defects in the equipment as the complainant is a layman and it is not possible for him to understand the problem of the CCTV, DVR etc.  The complainant has sufficiently proved that the OP was deficient in service and was adopting unfair trade practice.

7.                      In view of these set of circumstances, we hold the OP deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.  Accordingly we direct the OP to rectify the defects in the said equipment and deliver it to the complainant after carrying out necessary repairs, making it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging anything. The OPs shall also pay him a compensation of Rs.1,000/- as compensation . If the defect is of a permanent nature or cannot be rectified, the OP shall refund the amount of Rs.31,050/- to the complainant received by them towards the cost price of equipment CCTV alongwith DVR, revolving stand, supply box and HDD vide Annexure C-1 .The order shall be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the aforesaid compensation alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.01.2010, till its realization.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.