State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.P. Sahni vs Lt. Col Prithvi Pal Singh Grewal on 11 September, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 667 of 2014
Date of institution: 2.6.2014
Date of Decision: 11.9.2015
Mr. A.P. Sahni, Dragon Electronics Security System, Head Office, 76,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
Appellant/OP
Versus
Lt. Col. Prithvi Pal Singh Grewal (Retd.), 2067, Basant Avenue, Dugri,
Dhandra Road, Ludhiana.
Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated 28.4.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.P. Sahni, in person
For the respondent : Sh. P.P.S. Grewal, in person
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 2 Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.865 dated 22.11.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as the complainant) was allowed with a direction to OP to carry out necessary repair in the CCTV Cameras and memory disc of recorder to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and made the same functional without any defect in the same, without charging any cost. In case it is found that there is an inherent defect and repairs are not possible to replace the same with a new CCTV Cameras and Memory Disc of recorder or in the alternative to refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realization and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against OP on the averments that on 13.2.2013, he had asked Mr. A.P. Sahni, owner of Dragon Electronic Security to install CCTV Cameras with recorder in his house No. 2067, Basant Avenue, Dugri, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana. Mr. A.P. Sahni alognwith two mechanics visited his house and installed three CCTV Cameras alongwith recorder and other accessories on 15.6.2013 and demand labour of Rs. 17,500/-, which he paid in full. He gave his card with one year warranty written on its back, which he had taken in good faith. On 30.6.2013, cameras stopped working. On his complaint, Mr. A.P. Sahni came and after checking, he told that three cameras had burnt due to voltage fluctuation and demanded Rs. 2,000/- for repair of the cameras, First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 3 which he paid to avoid any conflict. On 29.7.2013, again CCTV cameras stopped recording and Mr. Sahni visited and told that the memory disc of the recorder had stopped functioning and Mr. Sahni assured that he will send this memory disc alongwith bill to the Supplier of the disc and that he will receive the new disc within 2-3 days by courier and in good faith, he returned the bill to him. However, Mr. A.P. Sahni kept on giving false assurances that he had not received any courier with replacement. He had been contacting him on mobile No. 98555-04333 and 98722-48176 but he did not answer his calls. Then on 1.11.2013, he had gone to Police Post Basant Avenue wherein Havaldar Om Parkash was there and he called Mr. Sahni and he again promised in the presence of Om Parkash that he will fix/solve the problem by evening only. On 5.11.2013, he again had a talks with Op, who gave him 11.11.2013 as a last date to fix the system. On 12.11.2013, his mechanic came with old defective memory disc but no recording took place. The Mechanic also replied that memory disc were/are made in China and had no guarantee. In this way, OP had cheated the complainant and was deficient in service. Accordingly, a consumer complaint was filed seeking directions against OPs for the refund of Rs. 19,500/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The complaint was contested by OP, who filed written reply stating that the complaint was not maintainable. In fact the complainant had approached OP for labour job for installation of CCTV Cameras and labour work was done by OP and all the material, cameras, recorder and other accessories were provided by First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 4 the complainant; OP had no concern with quality and value of the material used. He had given the warranty of one year for labour work only. OP never provided camera, recorder and other accessories and no bill of Rs. 17,500/- was ever given to the complainant. In the month of June, 2013, the complainant had stated that the cameras had stopped working and on visit, he found that these had burnt due to voltage fluctuations. The complainant partly paid Rs. 2,000/- on account of repair charges. In the month of July, 2013, the complainant told that the cameras had again stopped working and OP found that the memory of the recorder had burnt due to voltage fluctuation. OP never agreed before Havaldar Om Parkash to replace the memory disc. In the month of November, 2013, the complainant gave a threat to OP to file a false complaint before the Hon'ble Forum. Then workers of OP visited the complainant. Then the complainant and his wife had used uncivilized language and threatened OP. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-A, report of Sanjeev Soni Ex. C-1, quotation dated 1.3.2014 Ex. C-2, statement of Havaldar Om Parkash Ex. C-3. On the other hand, OP had tendered into evidence affidavit of A.P. Sahni Ex. R-A, certificate Ex. R-1.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above. First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 5
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the parties, who are present in person and have gone through the written arguments submitted by them.
9. In the grounds of appeal as well as in the written arguments filed by the appellant/OP, it has been contended that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence and documents on the record and wrongly held that the cameras were supplied by OP whereas OP is doing only the repair work. Even this Commission during the pendency of the appeal had called for a report from Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana and they in their report intimated that it was not found that Op was doing any sale purchase as no documents were found with him. No bill of purchase of any item has been placed on the record by the complainant. The entire material i.e. camera and other accessories were provided by the complainant and Op had just fixed the cameras and charged the labour charges. Therefore, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set- aside. Whereas the respondent/complainant in his written arguments and oral arguments in person stated that the cameras were supplied by the complainant. In the month of June, 2013 and after 50 days there was a problem, which was got resolved from OP but again there was a problem in memory disc as recorder had stopped functioning. He again contacted OP, who promised to replace it and at that time he had taken the bill. After that he had taken the plea that he did not supply the camera and had just done the labour work. First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 6 Since the bill was taken back by OP, therefore, the complainant was unable to produce on the record the bill issued to him. However, he has placed on the record Ex. C-3, statement of Om Parkash, Havaldar, who had stated that on 1.11.2011, the complainant had come to Police Post, Basant Avenue, Thana Sadar, Ludhiana and told him about the problem with Dragon Electronic Security System, who spoke to Mr. A.P. Sahni (OP), who promised that he will replace the memory disc by today evening. The complainant had again visited Police Post on 8.11.2013 and informed that Mr. Sahni did not fulfil his promise. So far the electric voltage fluctuation is there, there is report Ex. C-1 of Sony Electronic, who after checking the CCTV Cameras gave the report that the hard disc did not get damage due to voltage fluctuation. OP had also placed on the record his visiting card in the name of Dragon Electronic Security System in which he has mentioned the guarantee for one year and the calls details vide which the complainant had a talk with Mr. Sahni number of times.
10. No doubt that there is no bill on the record alleged to be issued by OP for supply of cameras but a fact is admitted by OP that these were installed by him. Now it is to be determined whether he has just done a labour job or actually installed the cameras. Apart from his own statement, the complainant had placed on the record the statement of Havaldar Om Parkash, who has stated that when complainant had made a complaint before him while posted in Police Chowkey Basant Avenue, Thana Sadar, Ludhiana, he contacted Mr. Sahni (OP) on telephone and told him the problem of the complainant and he promised to settle the problem on the same day evening. On First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 7 8.11.2013, the complainant again visited the Police Post that the problem was not solved. Havaldar Om Parkash is independent Govt. official, he has nothing in favour of the complainant or adverse against OP to speak lie. The issuance of the bill is not a pre-condition to file a complaint in case from the circumstances, it is proved that the cameras were installed by OP and that the complainant is a Retired Lt. Col. and it is difficult to disbelieve his affidavit and there is no reason that he will say that the CCTV cameras were supplied by OP in case he had purchased the same from other agency and there is no reason not to file a complaint against that agency. It seems that OP is not keeping its account books to avoid his liability, it also amounts unfair trade practice on the part of OP and not to address the complaints of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we are of OPinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings. There is no reason to differ with OPinion so expressed by the District Forum. The same is hereby affirmed.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 2500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
First Appeal No. 667 of 2014 8
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.9.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member September 11, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member