Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/656/2015

Vijay Kumar Mangla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Personal Computer Services - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Kant Verma Adv. & Onam Khosla Adv.

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	656/2015
Date of Institution	:	16.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	06/01/2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Vijay Kumar Mangla s/o Sh.Dewan Chand aged about 43 years r/o H.No.2823, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Personal Computer Services, Shop No.24, Sector 31-D, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   OP exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that OP is engaged in the business of sale and installation of CCTVs. He approached the OP for installation of CCTV (Make ELDRADO) at his residence.  It has further been averred that the OP charged a total sum of Rs.19,876/- vide invoice dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure C-1) towards 3 Cameras, DVR, Hard disk, wiring/installation, domain (for online viewing) etc.  He was informed that the hard disk installed would have recording capacity of almost 10 days. After the installation, he brought to the notice of the OP that the display of the camera screen was not full and almost 1/3^rd portion of the screen was being left blank and the display was stretched towards right side due to which the display of the camera and functions could not be viewed properly but the OP told him that it was the problem of the LCD of the TV and he should approach the LCD Company.  However, the Service Engineer who checked the LCD of the TV informed him that since the TV was working properly so there was no question of any defect in the LCD and he advised him to approach the OP. Thereafter, he made a number of requests to the OP but it failed to rectify the same even after several requests. After passing couple of days, the complainant noticed that the recording was not proper as the replay used to pause after few seconds itself and the recording was only for 2-3 days instead of 10 days as promised.  It has further been averred that two cameras were not working properly and the same were sent to OP for its replacements.  The DVR was removed in the month of August, 2015 and a standby DVR was installed by the OP.  The standby DVR provided by the OP did proper working. However, after three weeks, the DVR and the Cameras repaired by the OP were installed and they started giving the same problems as earlier faced by the complainant.  According to the complainant, the online viewing did not work for which he requested the OP to set right the same but to no effect.  According to the complainant, inspite of his repeated requests/visits, the OP failed to rectify the problems being faced by him and ultimately he got served a legal notice dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure C-2) upon it but the same was received back with the remarks “refusal” whereas the notice sent through ordinary post was duly received.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Notice sent for the service of the Opposite Party was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 23.12.2015, it was proceeded against exparte. 
3.           We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the invoice dated 18.11.2014 vide which the OP charged a sum of Rs.19876/- towards 3 Cameras, DVR, Hard disk, wiring/installation, domain (for online viewing) etc. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the registered notice served upon the OP. Annexure C-3 is the registered envelope sent by the complainant to the OP which was received back with the remarks “refused”. Besides this, the complainant has also placed on record his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The Opposite Party despite due service did not turn up to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Therefore, the assertions of the complainant has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted.  As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved. 
5.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under ;-

1. To remove the cameras alongwith the DVR and wiring and refund Rs.19,876/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06/01/2016                                                                                    sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER