Haryana

Ambala

CC/43/2013

M/S PARAMPARA DESIGNER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S WORLD PHONE INFRASTRUCUTURE SERVICES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

23 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

           Complaint Case No.      : 43 of 2013

Date of Institution         : 03.02.2012

            Date of Decision            : 23.05.2017

M/s Parampara Designer, # 8 Industrial Estate near Motor Market, Ambala City through its Prop. Sh. Sushil Dhir.                      

                  ……Complainant.

Versus

M/s World Phone Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., C-153, Okhala Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director/Director.  

                                                                   ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Sharma, counsel for the OP.

ORDER.

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having a cloth shop and earning his livelihood by doing the cloth shop and he is the prop. of his shop and he was in the need of installment of security system so that pilferage/theft if any can be detected so that the complainant does not suffer any loss. There was a advertisement in the newspaper regarding the security system and it was also mentioned in the advertisement that the respondent/opposite party have good security system and taking into consideration of this fact, after protracted negotiation, it was agreed upon between the opposite party and complainant that opposite party will install security system at the shop in the cloth market, Ambala City, accordingly, the opposite party have supplied the material vide bill No. WPIS/10-11/039 dated 10-11-2010 and the said system was installed on 19-11-2010 and for this the opposite party has also given the guarantee of one year regarding the working of the system as well as workmanship of instruments. The cost of the system was fixed for Rs. 35,000/- and out of this an amount of Rs. 26,250/- was paid by the complainant immediately and balance is paid after successful running of system for three months. It is further submitted that the opposite party has also charged Rs. 2,000/- extra for the cable even though the complainant was not liable to pay such amount, taking into consideration of the long term business relation, the complainant paid the said amount. After two months of the installation, the said system started given problem and in the month of January 2011 itself the system was not working and after complaint the respondent have taken camera 4 number and one DBR and after rectification, the opposite party have installed DBR but after about one month, again there was the same problem and on 24-02-2011 the complainant has made  a complaint about the none functioning of the system on this the opposite party has taken the two camera and DBR, thereafter, opposite party has installed one camera and other camera was not installed and after the complaint was partially rectified and as the DBR problem was there so the complaint was kept pending. After many days the problem was rectified and once again in the month of March, 2011, the system does not work properly for which again the complaint was made. Again it was rectified after so many days and in the month of April, 2011 again the system stopped working for which the complaint was made and thereafter, inspite of many requests the system was not rectified and due to not working of the system, the complainant has to suffer a lot any many material have been pilferage/stolen due to the non working of the system.  The complainant served a legal notice dated 29-09-2011 to the opposite party but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed that OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 26,250/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that as per customer registration form and agreement dated 30-11-2010, which was signed by the complainant, he was supplied with 4 cameras system for Rs. 35,000/- but instead of making the said entire cost of equipment, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 26,250/- and as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the balance sum of Rs. 8,750/- was payable by the complainant to the OP herein on the delivery of the system and which was successfully installed and made operational in perfect order, besides the sum of Rs. 2,000/- being the cost of extra length cable and which was rightly charges after its installation. However, the complainant despite of above, did not make balance amount i.e. Rs. 8,750/- to the opposite party by pointing out non existing defects just to usurp the unpaid cost of the system. It is further submitted that it is the complainant who started tinkering with the system deliberately to evade the liability of the unpaid cost of the system resultantly, the same used to remain out of order temporarily and which was immediately set right.   There was no inherit defect in the working of the system but the same was due to above tinkering with the system and mishandling of the same and absolutely not because of any deficiency in service or any alleged defect in the system. It is further submitted that the reply to the legal notice dated 29-09-2011was also sent to the complainant on 24-10-2011.  Hence, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

3.                To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 &  C-12 and closed his evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered affidavit Annexure RX along with documents annexure R1 to annexure R2 closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased security system on 10-11-2010 from the opposite party and the said system was installed on 19-11-2010 with one year guarantee and the opposite party has also charged Rs. 2,000/- extra for the cable even though the complainant was not liable to pay such amount. He further averred that after two months of the installation, the said system started given problem and in the month of January 2011 itself the system was not working and after complaint the OP has taken camera 4 number and one DBR and after rectification, the opposite party have installed DBR but after about one month, again there was the same problem and on 24-02-2011 the complainant again made a complaint about non functioning of the system, on which the opposite party has taken the two camera and DBR, thereafter, opposite party has installed one camera and other camera is not installed. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that once again in the month of March, 2011, the system does not work properly for which again the complaint was made. Again it was rectified after so many days and in the month of April, 2011 again the system stopped working for which the complaint was made and thereafter, inspite of many requests the system was not rectified.

                    On the other hand, counsel for opposite party has argued that the complainant was supplied with 4 cameras system for Rs. 35,000/- but instead of making the said entire cost of equipment, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 26,250/- and as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the balance sum of Rs. 8,750/- was payable by the complainant to the OP at the time of delivery of the security system in question. However, the complainant despite of above, did not make balance amount i.e. Rs. 8,750/- to the opposite party by pointing out non existing defects just to usurp the unpaid cost of the system. Counsel for the OP has further argued that it is the complainant who started tinkering with the system deliberately to evade the liability of the unpaid cost of the system resultantly, the same used to remain out of order temporarily and which was immediately set right.  

5.                In view of the above said discussion and after gone through the documents annexure C2, annexure C3 and annexure C4, we have observed that the security system in question is defective one from the very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the opposite party despite his several repairs.   Now, we have come to the conclusion that the alleged security system was having some functional technical problem during the warranty period and the same could not be rectified by the opposite party despite several repairs, hence, the complainant is entitled to refund the price of the security system, which was deposited by him i.e. amounting to Rs. 26,250/- out of total sale consideration amounting to Rs. 35,000/-.  Accordingly, the present  complaint is, hereby, allowed, subject to return the security system set in question except one camera which is laying with opposite party and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of copy of order:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.26,250/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  filing of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.

 

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within a stipulated period failing which the awarded amounts  shall attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

ANNOUNCED ON : 23.05.2017.                      

                                                                           (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                PRESIDENT  

 

                                                                          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                    MEMBER