Date of Complaint : 12/02/2016

                                  Date of Disposal :30/06/2016

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

     SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. The complaint has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OP’s for deficiency of service and prays for directing the OP’s to refund the amount of Rs.19,545/- paid by the complainant at the rate of 6% p.a. from 29/05/2015 and a compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit.

    

2. The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant is the resident of Kurchi Village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.The complainant is running a Dream Land Homestay of silver category as per the norms of Tourism Department, he got a C.C T.V camera installed for his homestay which is near to his residential house.The complainant states that he approached OP-1 and OP-1 through OP-2 who being the Marketing executive got inspected the homestay through their technical expert and got the C.C Camera with 10 ancillary items installed on 29/05/2015 at the homestay of the complainant and the complainant had made payment on the same day i.e. 29/05/2015 under the suppliers reference No.17/2015-16 under Invoice No.17 being the sum of Rs.19,545/-.

    

3. The complainant states that after few days of the installation above said instrument, the CCTV camera Hikivision 4 CHDVR Mini Camera catches figure and retained it for 15 days but then started giving trouble by blowing visil and giving continuously kee kee sound which was irritating.The complainant reported the matter to OP-1 who in turn sent a technical expert to repair the item No.3 CCTV camera Hikivision 4 CH DVR Mini camera.The complainant was rectified and the said CC camera functioned normally for 15 days.But again the old problem started repeating in item No.3 and it stopped capturing and recording the pictures or images.Hence, the complainant sent a notice to OP-1 and OP-2 on 05/11/2015.But OP-2 sent a reply on 11/11/2015 stating that their company work is only to sale the product and to send the expert only once and asked the complainant to refer Bill No.17 and as per the warrantee OP-2 asked the complainant to contact OP-3 who being the importer of the product.Aditya Infotech for further service.The complainant states that OP-2 have not replaced the item No.3 or hard disk but just averred those items as replaced.Hence the complainant approached this Forum seeking remedy.

    

4. After the admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP’s by RPAD.The notice was duly served to OP-1, 2 & 3 and since all of them have not presented themselves in the above case, the OP’s have been placed exparte and the case was posted for filing the affidavit of the complainant.There upon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and has relied upon documents in support of his case.The arguments of the complainant was heard and then posted the case for orders.

    

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant the following points that would arise for our consideration are as follows;

    

6. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the OP’s?

    

7. To what order the parties are entitled?

    

    

8. Findings on the above points are as follows;

    

           Point No.1:- In the affirmative

           Point No.2:- As per order

    

   R E A S O N S

    

9. Point No.1:- The admitted fact as per the reply of OP-2 to the notice of the complainant shows clearly that OP’s had installed CCTV camera to the home stay of the complainant.  The complainant submits in his complaint, affidavit and arguments that the above said CCTV camera was fitted to his homestay.  The reply notice of OP-2 also clearly explains the fact that the defect mentioned by the complainant is true.

     The complainant had got the CC TV cameras installed from the OP’s as the law required him to.

     The complainant is a consumer as per the section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which states that it excluded from its purview a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.  Further, an explanation was added to the definition which reads that “for the purpose of this clause “Commercial Purpose” does not include use by any person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment”.

      In I (2016) CPJ 87 (NC), State Commission observed that the complainant was a company and the lift was used for commercial purpose and by no stretch of imagination complainant can be said to be a consumer.

      But in the above case the complainant is an agriculturist and has produced RTC where he has built another house for the purpose of home stay where in people come and relax like staying in a house and where in the complainant provides service and thus earns his livelihood and hence complainant does not come under the purview of a company.

     The complainant has produced documentary evidence on record which fully corroborates the case of the complainant.  The notice was duly served on the OP’s but still they failed to appear and were placed exparte.  Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant remained unchallenged.

1. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his case as made out in the complaint by placing sufficient materials on record.The OP-1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,545/- to the complainant along with 6% p.a from 29/05/2015 till the date of this order and are jointly liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- being the cost of the proceedings.Complaint against OP-3 is dismissed.

    

         Accordingly we answered point no.1 in the affirmative.

    

2. Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

    

   O R D E R

        The complaint filed u/sec. 12 of the C.P. Act by Sri. Ajjamada N. Annaiah on 12/02/2016 against Sri. Vasanth Rao Chavan.A and 2 others is hereby allowed.

3. The OP 1 & 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,545/- to the complainant along with 6% p.a from 29/05/2015 till the date of this order.Complaint against OP-3 is dismissed.

4. The OP’s are also jointly liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1,000/- being the cost of the proceedings and in failure to comply with the aforesaid order within the stipulated period of 30 days, the OP’s are liable to pay an interest of 10% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3,000/- from the date of this order till the date of compliance of the aforesaid order.

5. If this order is violated the complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against OP-1 and OP-2 for the offences punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.

6. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th day of June 2016)

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)              (K.D. PARVATHY)       

           MEMBER              PRESIDENT                    MEMBER