BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 03 of 2023
Date of Institution : 04.01.2023
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024.
Deepak Kumar, aged 37 years son of Shri Dhan Raj, resident of B-13/2697, Khanna Colony, Ward no. 8, Old Police Post Wali Gali, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Om Technocraft, SCF No. 86, CC-1st, Around Additional Mandi, Sirsa, Haryana- M. No. 94162-42200 and 98986-18108.
2. M/s Aditya Infotech Ltd., E-28, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi- 110020, India.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ritesh Madan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 06.07.2021 the complainant had purchased two CCTV cameras alongwith its accessories from op no.1 vide bill no. 8521 dated 06.07.2021 for Rs.9814/-. That said cameras were not giving proper and clear picture and there is manufacturing defect in the same. The said cameras were under guarantee of two years but the same are still not giving satisfactory service since their installation by complainant. The complainant made complaint to the ops and demanded back money paid by him and to take away the cameras but the ops neither refunded the amount nor replaced the said cameras and in this manner, the ops have committed fraud with the complainant. It is further averred that ops are not giving satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 10.11.2022 to the ops but to no effect and thus ops have caused deficiency in service, financial loss and unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per estimate/ challan no. 8521 dated 06.07.2021, on the demand and with the consent of complainant and by telling him terms and conditions in simple language when the complainant admitted the op no.1 had sold total 8 items to the complainant which are detailed in the challan serial wise. As per serial no.2, the complainant had purchased two cameras at the rate of Rs.1150/- per camera i.e. for total Rs.2300/- and as per serial no.1 and serial nos. 3 to 8 the complainant had purchased other items for an amount of Rs.7514, which includes fitting material, wire, DVR and other accessories etc. It is further submitted that complainant has not leveled any allegation of manufacturing defect in the items and in fact the complainant has raised the dispute only about two cameras which are of only of Rs.2300/-. The complainant has leveled false allegation that aforesaid Cameras are not giving proper and clear pictures and there is manufacturing defect in the cameras as alleged. The complainant has not produced any solid proof regarding the alleged manufacturing defect in the cameras. He has not produced any report from the Engineer or technician regarding any manufacturing defect in the cameras and also there is no reference of any report from the customer care centre in this regard to prove the defect in the cameras and even no report from the expert of cameras has been produced by him. In this way, complainant has totally failed to prove any defect in the cameras. It is further submitted that if the cameras are installed at more height than the normal, then it would give less clearance and if the cameras are installed at low height, then accordingly the picture would be very clear. The complainant was required to install the cameras at the height of 8 feet but he has got installed the cameras at the height of 14 feet, hence complainant himself is responsible for less clearance of pictures from the cameras. It is further submitted that as per terms and conditions given in challan no. 8521 dated 06.07.2021, it is clearly mentioned therein that Goods once sold will not be taken back. In this way, the terms and conditions are binding upon the complainant and he cannot make any demand from the answering op beyond the terms and conditions mentioned in the said challan. As and when complainant met the answering op, he was clearly told the position. There is no legal or factual ground for refund of the price of the sold cameras to the complainant. It is further submitted that op no.1 had purchased the camera in question in the packing of the manufacturing company (op no.2) and in the same situation op no.1 sold the same to the complainant, without making any change or alteration. Hence, the answering op no.1 is not liable for any such alleged manufacturing defect in the cameras. In the aforesaid challan dated 06.07.2021 in the terms and conditions, it is clearly written that warranty will be provided by respected brand. It is further submitted that after receipt of legal notice, the spot where the CCTV cameras had been installed was inspected on 20.11.2022 at 11.00 a.m alongwith Mistri/ Expert and on inspection, no defect was found in the cameras but the complainant refused to sign over the inspection report. However, it was suggested to the complainant that these CCTV cameras be installed at the height of 8 feet because at the low height, it will give clear picture. The second suggestion was also given to the complainant that if he is not satisfied with the working of these CCTV cameras, he can receive the price of these cameras i.e. Rs.2300/- after return of cameras. Both these suggestions were given to the complainant for his satisfaction and in order to avoid litigation, although he was not entitled to any kind of relief but the complainant refused to accept these suggestions. In this way, the complainant has made false complaint only to harass the answering op and to blackmail him unnecessary due to lust of money and greediness taking undue advantage of the process of law. It is further submitted that even op no.2 in reply to the legal notice had written to the complainant to bring both these cameras to the Customer Care Centre but he did not bring these cameras there with malafide intention because he had full knowledge that there was no defect in the cameras. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.2 only came to know about the dispute through legal notice dated 10.11.2022. In fact, after receipt of aforesaid notice, the Service Team representatives of op no.2 tried to contact the complainant so that quick resolution may be provided to the complainant but no contact details shared by complainant. Finally, the op no.2 communicated to complainant through its reply of legal notice to “visit nearby op no2’s local service center with the faulty material so that the grievance can be redressed. The address of nearby service centers were also shared i.e. of Sonepat and Delhi, however, complainant did not approach the service centers of op no.2 as well as op no.2, since there was no issues in the working of CCTV cameras and complainant has failed to enclose any evidence to support his alleged contentions. The executive of op no.2 namely Mr. Sahil Bhasin and Mr. Sandeep Singh further spoke to the complainant on his number on 06.02.2023 and duly explained them to mutually resolve the matter but the complainant appears to be a very zealous litigant who is more interested in litigation rather than instant resolution. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. estimate/ challan Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2 and postal receipts Ex.C3.
6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Singh, Deputy Manager Legal as Ex. D1, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Madaan on behalf of op no.1 Ex.D2, affidavit of Sh. Krishan Kumar on behalf of op no.1 as Ex.D3 and documents Ex.D4 to Ex.D6.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. Learned counsel for ops has also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Versus Shashikala J. Ayachi 2022(2) Apex Court Judgments 624 (SC) and also decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Versus Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. & anr. I (2016) CPJ 190 (NC), Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat, II (2018) CPJ 533 (NC), decision of Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission in case titled as I.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Versus Ajay Puri & ors. I (20-19) CPJ 20A (CN), decision of Hon’ble Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad in case titled as Naresh Vijaykant Rawal Versus Akash Appliances Sales and Services & anr. IV (2012) CPJ 106.
8. There is no dispute of the fact that on 06.07.2021 complainant purchased two CCTV cameras alongwith accessories from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.9814/- and in this regard complainant has also placed on file estimate/ challan dated 06.07.2021 Ex.C1. However, there is nothing on file to prove any defect in the cameras provided by op no.1 to the complainant. The complainant has not placed on file any report of any expert person/ mechanic on file to prove the fact that there is any type of defect/ manufacturing defect in the cameras. From the written version of ops it is clear that ops were ready to refund the price of the cameras or to inspect the cameras through their service centers and even advised the complainant to install the cameras at the height of 8 feet from 14 feet but complainant did not agree with any of above said solutions. Even the complainant has failed to prove on record that issue in the cameras is not due to height. Since there is no evidence to prove any defect in the cameras in question, therefore, possibility that as cameras has been got installed at more height, therefore, the same are not giving proper pictures cannot be ruled out. The authorities cited by learned counsel for ops are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, complainant is not entitled to any relief.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated:06.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
