Haryana

Ambala

CC/104/2018

Shyam Sunder Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vivekanand Traders. - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  104 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  16.03.2018

                                                          Date of decision            :  30.05.2019

 

 

Shyam Sunder Goel aged about 63 years son of Late Sh. Vidya Sagar Resident of H.No.1125, Kartar Nagar, Model Town Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

 

1.       M/s Vivekanand Traders, Shop No.28, Vikas Vihar, Market Complex, Ambala City through its Proprietor Sh. Gaurav Gupta.

2.       Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Properietor, M/s Vivekanand Traders, Shop No.28, Vikas Vihar, Market Complex, Ambala City.

3.       CP Plus India Pvt Ltd. A-12, Sector-4, Noida -201301 India, through its authorized signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Neena Sandhu, President

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

.

                            

Present:       Sh. Bhupesh Bharara, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2.

Sh. Harsh Sawhney, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

 

Order:         Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To refund the cost of CCTV camera, DVR and hard-disk alongwith interest@18% per annum from the date of its purchase till its realization.  
2. To pay of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 

 

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

 

The brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of November 2016, complainant got installed CCTV Cameras of best and renowned brand “CP Plus” DVR and Hard Disk with Facility of four HD cameras and having memory for one full month, from the OP No.1 with two years warrantee/guarantee. An amount of Rs.8,000/- in advance was paid by the son of the complainant, in cash to the OPs for the purchase of the said device. While receiving the amount the OPs promised to send the original bill/cash memo of DVR and Hard Disk to the complainant at the time of installation of the device at his house. The technician of the Ops installed the device but did not provide the same. On asking, OPs made several false promises/excuses, like the bill book is with technician/bill has been issued/ take it any time/bill has been misplaced/bill will be delivered after locating the same etc., but did not deliver the same. On the intervening night of 16.03.2017 and 17.03.2017, after 10.00 P.M, some mischief was committed and the cement brick retaining wall of about 1’X3’, outside shop shutter was damage/broken. The complainant brought the DVR at the shop of the OPs but the recoding could not be downloaded as the device was found to be defective. The OPs neither changed the device nor issued the bill and dilly-dallying the matter. A legal notice dated 27.03.2017 was served upon the OPs but they did not reply the same. He made a complaint on 03.04.2017 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana, which was marked to to Baldev Nagar, Police Station. The Ops promised to replace the Hard Disk of the CCTV Cameras and also to issue the bill. The OPs replaced the defective CCTV cameras vide replacement voucher no.305 dated 19.04.2017 but did not issue the bill. On 05.08.2017, the DVR and hard disk replaced by the OPs stopped working. Complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs but they did not attend his compliant. Since the OPs did not provide him the bill, therefore, he complaint against them to the  Excise and Taxation Department, regarding sale of goods without proper bills. The OPs produced a copy of cash memo in back date of 19.10.2016, claiming to be issued for sale to the complainant before the Excise and Taxation Department and got the complaint closed. The complainant collected the bill from Excise and Taxation Department, by filing application under RTI Act. As the hard disk and DVR were not working, complainant got it repaired from the market and paid Rs.500/- for the change of the wire. The complainant again served a legal notice upon the OPs on 08.01.2018 but they did not reply the same. The OPs failed to provide the requisite services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi;  estoppal and concealed the true facts. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the CCTV cameras from the OPs, vide sale bill dated 19.10.2016 for Rs.7,400/-. At that time the complainant was duly advised and requested to abide by the usage guidelines, for efficient and proper working of the said device when required. It is also stated that no cameras or connecting wire was ever purchased by the complainant from OPs. In the month of March, 2017, the complainant informed the OP No.1 that there was some problem in hard disk. The technicians of OP No.1 visited the premises of the complainant and after examining the entire set-up, duly conveyed and clarified to him that there was no defect in the said CP Plus DVR and Hard Disk and there might be some problem regarding connecting the DVR with the Monitor. But the complainant was adamant to get the said CP Plus DVR and Hard Disk replaced, which was replaced vide replacement voucher no.305 dated 19.04.2017. The complainant later on admitted that on inspection, it was found that the connecting wire of the DVR and the monitor was defective. It is a matter of fact and record that the said connecting wire was never supplied by the OPs No.1 & 2. There is no deficiency on their part and prayed that complaint filed against them may be dismissed with cost.

Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and concealed the material facts. On merits, it is stated that after noticing the non-working of the DVR and Hard-Disk, complainant approached the OPs No.1 & 2 and they replaced the Hard Disk on analysis of the fault. The OP No.3 was not aware of the alleged problem faced by the complainant. The OP No.3 is duty bound to provide after sales services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty upon furnishing of the original invoice. The complainant never approached it for redressal of his grievance. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                To prove his version the complainant tendered his affidavit Annexure CW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, tendered affidavit, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Vivekanand Traders, Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OP No.3, tendered affidavit, Sh. Laksha Puri, Assistant Manager-Sales, Annexure RW-3/A along with document, Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is an admitted fact that the CCTV cameras got installed by the complainant in the month of November, 2016 were duly replaced by the OPs vide replacement voucher no.305 dated 19.04.2017. In Para no.11 & 12 of the complaint, the complainant has contended that the replaced CCTV cameras stopped working on 05.08.2017 and the OPs did not attend the complaint. He got the same repaired from the market. The connecting wire from DVR to the monitor, was found defective and the same was replaced with a new one, for which he paid Rs.500/-.  Meaning thereby the CCTV cameras were not defective but they were not working because of defective wire. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant to establish that the replaced CCTV cameras were defective. Thus, the prayer made for refund of the price of the CCTV cameras in question cannot be accepted. We do not find any merits in the complaint, consequently, we dismiss the same with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 30.05.2019

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)               (Ruby Sharma)      (Neena Sandhu)

            Member                     Member                         President