Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/656

Mrs. Promila Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Anil Kumar Puri - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                          GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

          150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 18.09.2015

Complaint Case. No. 656/15                                               Date of order:    10.11.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mrs. Promila Bhalla R/o Flat No.335, Block-GH-5/7 Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.

Complainant

VERSUS

 

Sh. Anil Kumar Puri Prop. Of Day Night Security 105, LIG Flats, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.

Opposite  party

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Smt. Promila Bhalla named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Sh. Anil Kumar Puri proprietor of Day Night Security herein after referred as the opposite party with averments that the complainant on27.05.2015 on payment of Rs. 11,000/- ordered the opposite party to install  two high quality HD CCTV Cameras at  her Flat No. 335, Block- GH-5/7 Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.  The complainant  on demand by the opposite party also paid             Rs. 2,000/- for another camera.  But the opposite party on 28.05.2015 installed only  one camera.  The complainant later on came to know that the opposite  party

installed   a    defective   camera.   The    opposite    party    did     not     install    the HD CCTV  cameras and also did not repair the  camera.  Hence   the   present  complaint  for   directions  to   the  opposite  party   to refund Rs. 13,000/-  received by him and pay Rs. 12,000/- loss of security and safety  and Rs. 10,000/-  on account of  physical  harassment, tension  and mental agony on the part of the opposite party.

            After notice the opposite party filed reply stating that the opposite party gave estimate  of work of installation of CCTV Camera vide  order  No. 181 dated  27.05.2015 of Rs. 9,860/-.  The complainant   on receipt of estimate changed her mind and asked the opposite party for supply of two cameras for Rs. 11,000/- instead of Rs. 11,710/- .  The opposite party agreed for change and issued receipt of balance amount of Rs. 7,000/-. The opposite party never promised the complainant for installation of HD CCTV cameras. The opposite party promised to installed Sony Camera.  When the opposite party on 28.05.2015  visited the complainant  for installation of the CCTV   cameras  she again changed  her mind and asked for installation of  only one camera.  Accordingly the new order dated 28.05.2015 was drawn for Rs. 11,000/- minus 1850/-(cost of one camera)= Rs. 9150/-.  The opposite party installed only one  CCTV camera on  request of the complainant .  The complainant  in  the evening of 28.05.2015 called the opposite party and told him that her neighbours throw yellow sarso at   her door. She wanted to record movement of her neighbours.   The opposite party on 29.05.2015 explained the complainant that the camera can cover particular range and angle of view.  There is no complaint of not- functioning of the CCTV Cameras.   She has filed a false and frivolous  complaint just to harm and harass the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party denying  contents of the reply reiterating her stand taken in the complaint and once again prayed for directions to the opposite party. 

            When Smt. Promila Bhalla complainant was asked to lead evidence she tendered  her affidavit  narrating  facts of the complaint.  She also relied  upon estimate orders dated 27.05.2015 and 28.05.2015 and specification of Sony CCD.

            When the opposite party was asked to lead evidence he tendered his affidavit  narrating  facts of the reply .  The opposite party  has also relied upon copies  of  documents placed on  record by the complainant.

 We have  heard learned counsel for  complainant and opposite party and have gone  through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

            After  having  heard both  sides at length and going through  the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents placed on  record it is evident that case of the complainant  is that she placed order and purchased HD CCTV cameras from the opposite party.   The opposite party did not install the HD CCTV  cameras.  Therefore, there is unfair  trade practice and  deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite party.  Whereas  case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased  Sony CCD and the opposite party installed  the same.  There is no complaint of not- functioning of the CCTV cameras. 

            The  parties have placed on record estimate orders dated 27.05.2015 and 28.05.2015 and perusal of the estimate orders shows that the opposite party  sold  Bullet Sony  CCTV cameras to the complainant .  The complainant has failed to show any proof that she purchased HD CCTV cameras from the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant  failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of  the opposite party.  Hence there  is no merit in the complaint.  The same fails and is hereby dismissed.               

            onHoH

  Order pronounced on :

•  Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT