The complainant has instituted the case against the op no.1 and op no.2 for supplying some defective CC TV to the complainant. The case of the complainant germane in the complaint can be precisely shown that complainant purchased seven CC TV with the payment of Rs.44,721/- on 8.1.2013 and 30.1.2013 which subsequently became defective on 9.2.2013. The complainant used or placed those CC TV in the Petrol Pump area of the complainant. The complainant application to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices , Hooghly Region but  no effective result. Hence this case praying refunding the price of the CC TV and compensation.

            The Ops case is that they supplied the material to the complainant . They purchased the material from the OP no.2. The Op no. 1 are not the manufacturer. After getting complaint they visited the complainant’s Petrol Pump on March, 2013 . The Opposite party instructed the complainant how to operate the CC TV but the petitioner  every time was non cooperative and

threatened the Opposite parties. It is also stated that these Ops have no liabilities in respect of manufacturing defect but this Op  admits service liability .

            The Op no.2 did not appear in the case and his case has been heard exparte.

            Complainant filed copy of Sale bill issued by the Vintron and money receipts , copy of letter issued by Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly Region, Complainant filed Evidence in chief and WNA. Op filed Evidence in chief and WNA.            

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?                                              
2. If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
3. If complainant is entitled to get any relief?                                           

DECISION WITH REASONS :

All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.

            The complainant in Evidence in chief as well as in the complainant has stated that they purchased seven CC TV from Vintron with the price of Rs.44,721/-  to that effect complainant has filed Sale bill and receipt of payment by authorized dealer by Vintron Informatics Ltd. showing settlement for installation of CC TV Surveillance system from Narayan Enterprise. The op admits that they have supplied those CC TV to the complainant after receiving the amount. Record also shows, as per statement of complainant, that they filed complaint before Assistant

Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly Region. The Op no.2, manufacturer of the CC TV  did not turn up to contest the case. The present Ops have supplied those CC TV to the complainant after receiving the amount as shown in those Xerox copy of sale bill and money receipts. It also appears from the record that those CC TVs were defective for which they made complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly region. The oP categorically admits the defects as per their Written version in para 20. It also appears from the evidence, argument etc. that after receiving the complaint this OP Narayan Enterprise did not alleviate the sufferings of the complainant from the defects of the CC TV which arose within a very short time from the date of purchase of the CC TV from the Narayan Enterprise.

            The complainant wanted to place those CC TV Surveillance system in their Petrol Pump to watch the criminal activities within the area and untoward incident within the area of the Petrol pump against the interest of the complainant. But complainant was unable to get the service of those CC TV and being deprived of the service of the CC TV , the complainant at first went to the door of the OP no.1 and thereafter knocked the door of the Business Affairs and did not get the redressal for which under compulsion the complainant approached before the Forum for adequate relief under C.P.Act.

            So after deliberation over the material on record we are of opinion that complainant’s case succeeds on contest and complainant is entitled to get relief       . Hence it is –

                                                            Ordered

            That the CC no.179 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against Op no.1 and exparte against op no.2. The Op no.1 is directed to replace the six nos of CC TV in question by a new one with same brand and price or refund the price of the CC TV in question of Rs.44,721/-. The Op no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.

            The Op no.1 is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute order by filing Execution case.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.