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

========

NIFD Institute of Fashion Design Ltd., through its Director/ Authorized Signatory, at SCO No. 28-29, having Regd. Office at SCO No. 32-35, Sector 8-C, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

M/s Pro-Eye Protection World (Pvt.) Limited, through its Director, Anoop Singh, SCO No. 126-127, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                               PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Rajiv Vij, Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh.Tarundeep S.Khaira, Counsel for OP.          

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

                Succinctly put, the Complainant Company purchased 14 CCTV Cameras along with 16 CH, JPEG with TCP/IP, 480 FPS, 16 Input 1 Output, Backup USB & Network Remote with 500 GB ID HDD from OP on 10.06.2009, for a sum of Rs.1,20,633/- vide invoice Annexure C-1. It was alleged that soon after the installation of the Cameras along with the hard disc, they started malfunctioning and some of the cameras even stopped working completely. The said fact was, immediately, brought to the notice of the OP. But despite their best, the OP failed to repair them. As a result of which, the entire circuit of the cameras installed at the premises of the Complainant company remained non-functional. It is the case of the Complainant that inspite of repeated requests and legal notice, the OP failed to replace the cameras and the hard disc with a new one and also failed to refund the invoice amount. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that a Techno Commercial Proposal, along with terms & conditions, was given to the complainant stating the technical specification of the surveillance equipments, to be installed at the office as well as the warranty period (Ann.R-1).  It is also stated that only 6+5 cameras were installed in the premises of complainant.  It is asserted that no major malfunctioning was noticed in the equipments, when the site of the complainant was visited. The defect was technical one, relating to the software, and not a manufacturing defect, which were repaired then & there.  It is further asserted that the product in question were covered under a warranty, for a maximum period of 12 months, against manufacturing defect only, which too was expired on 10.6.2010. Hence, the complainant had no right, to get the equipments repaired, free of cost.  It is pleaded that OP had no objection, whatsoever; to repair the products even now, if the complainant either buys the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) or pay for every visit and repair.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.      

5]             The averments of the complainant made in the complaint stands corroborated by documents Ann.C-1 to C-4. Annexure C-1 is Invoice No. MS91, dated 10.06.2009, proves the purchase of cameras in question. Annexure C-2 is the copy of letter dated 14.02.2011, showing that no heed was paid to redress the grievance of the Complainant.  Feeling aggrieved on account of the hardship & deficiency in service by the OP, it made a request for replacement of the cameras and the hard disc or in the alternative, to refund the purchase price. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the legal notice while Annexure C-4 is the acknowledgement slip thereof.

6]             The OP, in their written statement, admitted that 6+5 CCTV cameras were installed in the premises of complainant, as desired & settled in the Techno Commercial proposal (Ann.R-1).  It is denied as wrong & incorrect that any major malfunctioning was noticed in the equipments.  Moreover, the defect was technical i.e. more to do with the software and had nothing to do with the hardware i.e. not a manufacturing defect. The OP further clarified that as per the terms & conditions, mentioned in the proposal (Ann.R-1), all products were covered under manufacturing warranty of 6-12 months, depending on the item against manufacturing defect only.  The OP has averred that being a customer-centric organization, all calls of the complainant were attended and prompt services, for any defect, was provided, free of charge, then & there only.  Moreover, the warranty was given against manufacturing defect only. 

7]             OP has pleaded that although the warranty was given against manufacturing defect only, yet as a goodwill gesture, they visited the complainant on every call and repaired the defect, if any, free of cost.  It is also pleaded that though the warranty of the product/cameras had expired on 10.6.2010 and the complainant had no right to get the equipment/product repaired free of cost, yet the OP is still ready to repair the equipment, if the complainant either buys Annual Maintenance Contract or pay for every visit & repair.  It is contended that the complaint of the complainant is nothing, but a deliberate attempt to avoid payment of either the AMC charges or the service charges.

8]             After perusal of the record, placed on file, as well as going into details of the facts & circumstances of the case, it is proved that the complainant purchased the equipment in question vide Ann.C-1, dated 10.6.2009.  The OP has placed on record Tehcno commercial Proposal along with terms & conditions of the warranty as Ann.R-1.  The Warranty Clause, Service & Support Clause and Annual Maintenance Charges Clause of said terms & conditions, are reproduced below:-

                “h.   Warranty:-

                        Warranty:      All products are covered under manufacturing warranty of 6-12 months depending on the items against manufacturing defect only.  When material covered under warranty or otherwise is sent by you to us for repair/Resent please ensure the details of supply by us the defective material, freight for returning the material to us will have to be borne by you. If the material is having manufacturing defect, we shall bear the return freight by surface only.  Air delivery charges, will not be borne by us either way.

              i.     Service & Support:-

Free service up to one year within 48 hours from the time of registration of complaint in our office.

              j.     Annual Maintenance Charges:-

AMC @10% of the total project cost will be charged on annual basis after the completion of warranty period.  AMC will be as per the terms of the company.

9]             It is evidently clear, from the above reproduced clauses of said terms & conditions that the warranty period of the product in question, was for any manufacturing defect upto 12 months, from the date of purchase and thereafter the expiry of warranty period, the purchaser is liable to pay for any repair or service.  In this case, it is self-explanatory that the warranty had already expired on 10.6.2010. 

10]           However, the OP, in their written statement, has admitted/agreed to repair the equipments, if the complainant either buys the Annual Maintenance Contract or pay for every visit & repair.  There is no denying the fact that once the warranty period is over, the purchaser/complainant is legitimately supposed to pay for repair/service. 

11]           More so, the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect in the equipments, by leading any cogent & convincing evidence by way of affidavit etc. as well as any expert opinion justifying his stance. Therefore, in the absence of such justification, it can neither be said that the equipments are having any manufacturing defect nor the OPs can be held liable to provide services, free of cost, or to refund the amount as demanded by the complainant.

12]           After perusing all relevant documents placed on record as well as considering the pleadings of the parties, we are of the firm opinion that the allegations of the complainant holds no ground to prove his case, whereas, the OP is very much within its right to claim charges for repair or service, after the period of warranty is over.  Therefore, in our view, it can legitimately be concluded, without any hesitation, that the complainant has to pay for repair/services of the equipment in question or to avail Annual Maintenance Contract from the OP.  Hence, the present complaint has no merit, weight or substance.  Therefore, the same is dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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