Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Gurtejpal Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   complainant availed the services of the opposite party  through its partner Sh.Sourav Sethi for the installation of the CC TV Cameras at his residential house situated at 249, A-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 29,425/-  vide invoice No. 159 dated 6.7.2016 through cheque No. 162299 dated 9.7.2016 for Rs. 20000/-  and remaining amount in cash for the purchase and installation of the equipments i.e. 1 DVR, 7 Cameras, 1 Hard disk, S.M.Ps, Cable roll, BNC Power, Electricity Exp and installation charges to the opposite party. At the time of sale and installation of the equipment, it was assured by Sh.Saurav Sethi, partner of the opposite party that all the equipments are of high standard and good quality. Besides that a warranty of one year for all the equipments with one year free maintenance service was given to the complainant. But all the assurances given by the partner of the opposite party proved to be false . The two water proof/ day night vision cameras installed at the front side of the house became inoperative within a period of 15 days of its installation. Complaint in this respect was made to Sh.Saurav Sethi, partner of the opposite party , who promised to replace the defective cameras shortly but did not care to visit the house of the complainant to replace the same. The complainant also came to know that the opposite party has charged Rs. 1300/-   as sale price of C.P. against the MRP of Rs. 950/-. The equipments installed by the opposite party as well as after sale service promised by its partners proved to be of extremely  poor standard . The entire amount invested by the complainant on the installation of the CC cameras has proved to be a wastage of money. Besides that the security purposes for which the CC cameras were installed got defeated due to non working of the main two water proof/day night vision cameras installed on the front side. The opposite party  was bound to replace the defective cameras and power supply unit within a period of two three days,  but to no avail. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 11.10.2016 upon the opposite party for the redressal of his grievance but the opposite party did not bother to accede to the genuine requests of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 29,425/- paid by the complainant for the purchase of the equipment and installation charges of the CCTV cameras  after removing the entire sub standard and poor quality equipments of the CCTV cameras.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant had not made company as the necessary party in the complaint, hence the complaint is not maintainable  and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost ; that opposite party is only a service provider and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant ; that every customer get one year limited warranty period subject to terms and conditions , contained in the warranty card  and the warranty on the camera is not absolute but limited to terms and conditions. The brief extract is as “this limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear including without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, display, transport cost, defects caused by rough handling, by bending, compressing or dropping , water locked etc or also defects or damage caused by misusage of the products including the use, contrary to the instruction provided by the company or other acts beyond control of company or service provider.” On merits it was submitted that there is no defect  in the said camera during the visit made by the replying opposite party.  It was submitted that opposite party is just service provider and any warranty of camera has to be directly born by the company  which the complainant has not made the company as a necessary party to the present complaint. It was further submitted that the opposite party installed the said camera in the complainant premises as per complainant requirement and the complainant was satisfied with the said camera. But after one month of the installation , the complainant called the opposite party with regard to some clarity of the pictures. On complainant’s call, opposite party immediately visited the premises  checked and verified all the installed camera  but have not find any such types of problems. It is important to mention that the opposite party visited 12-15 times before the complainant premises  just for complainant satisfaction but the complainant has not paid any service charges to the opposite party. It was submitted that the answering opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and found that the problem persist at complainant end due to teasing with products. So the answering opposite party is not liable forever.  However in the instant complaint the said camera in question was teased by the complainant itself and now it was out of service  on behalf of the answering opposite party and if any warranty or guarantee is provided, the same may be provided by the company level . But the complainant has not made the company as a necessary party in the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.B.S. Rajput,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant  Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Sethi Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that complainant availed the services of the opposite party for the installation of the CC TV Cameras at his residential house by paying an amount of Rs. 29,425/-  vide invoice No. 159 dated 6.7.2016 , copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C-5 on record. The opposite party provided one year warranty for all the equipments with one year free maintenance service . It was the case of the complainant that at the time of sale and installation of the equipment, it was assured by Sh.Saurav Sethi, partner of the opposite party that all the equipments are of high standard and good quality. But all the assurances given by the partner of the opposite party proved to be false  as the cameras installed at the house of the complainant became inoperative within a period of 15 days of its installation.  In this regard , complainant made complaint to Sh.Saurav Sethi, partner of the opposite party , who promised to replace the defective cameras shortly but did not care to visit the house of the complainant to replace the same.  It was further the case of the complainant that the opposite party has charged Rs. 1300/-   as sale price of C.P. against the MRP of Rs. 950/-.  Complainant has alleged that security purposes for which the CC cameras were installed got defeated due to non working of the main two water proof/day night vision cameras installed on the front side. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 11.10.2016 upon the opposite party for the redressal of his grievance but the opposite party did not bother to accede to the genuine requests of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand  opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground there is no defect  in the said camera during the visit made by the replying opposite party.  It was submitted that opposite party is just service provider and any warranty of camera has to be directly born by the company,  which the complainant has not made the company as a necessary party to the present complaint. It was further submitted that the opposite party installed the said camera in the complainant premises as per complainant requirement and the complainant was satisfied with the said camera. But after one month of the installation , the complainant called the opposite party with regard to some clarity of the pictures and the opposite party immediately visited the premises  checked and verified all the installed camera  but have not find any such types of problems. It is important to mention that the opposite party visited 12-15 times before the complainant premises  just for complainant satisfaction but the complainant has not paid any service charges to the opposite party. It was submitted that in the instant complaint the said camera in question was teased by the complainant itself and now it was out of service  on behalf of the answering opposite party and if any warranty or guarantee is provided, the same may be provided by the company level . But the complainant has not made the company as a necessary party in the present complaint.

8.       But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that complainant got installed CC TV Cameras at his residential house by paying an amount of Rs. 29,425/-  vide invoice No. 159 dated 6.7.2016 , copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C-5 on record. But the CCTV Cameras became inoperative within a period of 15 days of its installation. In this regard complainant approached Mr. Saurav Sethi, partner of the opposite party, who promised to immediately replaced the defective cameras. But till date no efforts  have been made to replace the defective cameras . The complainant also served  legal notice upon the opposite party dated 11.10.2016, copy of the same is Ex.C-2 , postal receipts of which are Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 on record. The only plea of the opposite party is that the complainant had not made company as necessary party to the present complaint. It was not the case of the opposite party that the camera was not defective. Rather the complainant himself has admitted the fact that on the complaint of the complainant, opposite party visited the premises of the complainant 12-15 times to set right the camera in dispute , but however the complainant has not paid any service charges to the opposite party. So it stands proved on record that the camera which was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase became defective during warranty period . The only ground to deny the liability by opposite party has been contended that it is the manufacturer and not the dealer , who is liable relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission reported as Abhinandan Vs. Ajit Kumar Verma & Ors. Rather in a recent judgement reported as Pioneer Motors (Kannur) Pvt.Ltd Vs. N.Chandran, Winspot Tailors and another 2010 CTJ page 344 it has been held as under:-

“Both the manufacturer and its dealer are the necessary parties to the sale of a product. In case of any manufacturing defect alleged to be in that product, the dealer cannot evade its responsibility. It is as much liable to the purchaser as the manufacturer.”

9.       But however, the complainant has not produced on record any expert evidence to prove that the camera  in dispute was suffering from some manufacturing defect or same was beyond the scope of repair. In that eventuality, the claim of the complainant that he requires replacement of the camera  in dispute can not be accepted at this stage. In our opinion, the Opposite Party shall repair the camera  in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant, within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. In case the product is found irreparable  the product should be repaired with same or better make & model. As the complainant has suffered harassment as he has to visit the opposite party many a times, as such the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. The complaint stands allowed accordingly.   Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.