Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Mrs. Promila Bhalla vs Sh. Anil Kumar Puri on 4 March, 2021

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                        RESERVED ON:03.03.2021
                                                     PRONOUNCED ON:04.03.2021

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 666/2017

       IN THE MATTER OF:-

       MRS. PROMILA BHALLA                                    ....APPELLANT

                                            VERSUS

       MR. ANIL KUMAR PURI                             ....RESPONDENT

       CORAM:

       HON'BLE           DR.      JUSTICE     SANGITA        DHINGRA      SEHGAL
       (PRESIDENT)
       HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
       Present: Mr. Manish Shukla, Counsel for the Appellant.
                None for the Respondent.

       PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
                 PRESIDENT
                                  [Via Video Conferencing]
       1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 impugning the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West), New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 659 of 2015 filed by Appellant against Respondent wherein the dispute before the district forum is whether the appellant purchased an HD CCTV camera from the respondent.

2. The district forum vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 rejected the relief as prayed by the appellantand dismissed the complaint.

3. The District Forum, in its judgment dated 10.11.2017 has held as under:

"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."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the district forum erred in holding that theAppellant had purchased Bullet Sony CCTV camera from the respondent. He further contended that she purchased HD CCTV camera from the respondent, which the respondent failed to install and therefore, there is Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service on the part of respondent.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the appellant purchased Bullet Sony CCTV camera for a consideration of Rs. 9,150/- and the same was installed on 28.05.2015. He further contended that he never promised to install HD CCTV camera.

6. We have perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment.

7. Onperusal of the estimate/order dated 28.05.2015 filed by the appellant along with the present appeal, we find that one Bullet Sony CCTV camera was purchased by the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 9,150/- with aguarantee of 12 months from the date of installation of camera. There is no whisper of HD CCTV Camera in the evidence available on record before us. Once it is clear from the documentary evidence that the camera ordered was Sony Bullet CCTV Camera and not HD CCTV Camera, there is no question of any unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.

8. The failure of the appellant to produce evidence with respect to the purchase of HD CCTV camera from the respondent has proven fatal to her case and the findings of the District Forum that the appellant failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent is in consonance with the settled principles of law.

9. Consequently, we hold that the Respondent is not guilty for Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the respondent had discharged his liability by installing one Bullet Sony CCTV camera at the residence of the appellant on 28.05.2015.

10. In terms of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the judgment dated 10.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West), New Delhi.

11. No order as to costs.

12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:

04.03.2021 FA 666/2017 Page 4 of 4