Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 556
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER
PROMILA BHALLA – Appellant
Versus
ANIL KUMAR PURI – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 657 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence proving purchase of HD CCTV cameras, upholding prior findings on service deficiency.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - The complainant alleged that the respondent installed defective CCTV cameras, whereas the respondent maintained that only a Sony Bullet camera was purchased and installed - The District Forum dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence, a decision upheld by the State Commission. (Paras 5, 6, 9)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - This commission refrains from re-assessing facts when the findings are concurrent and based on cogent evidence. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant ordered two HD CCTV cameras for Rs. 11,000; only one camera was installed, which was a Sony camera, leading to complaints of unfair trade practices.
Findings of Court:
The failure to provide proof of purchase for HD CCTV cameras meant no unfair trade practices were established.
Issues: Did the respondent engage in unfair trade practices?
Ratio Decidendi: Findings were upheld as there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the lower forums' decisions.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal arguments regarding unfair trade practices. (Para 1) |
| 2. complaint regarding installation and quality of cctv cameras. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of evidence and assessment of lower forums' findings. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. jurisdictional limitations in revising factual findings. (Para 9) |
| 5. final dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 10) |
This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 04.03.2021 in Appeal No. 666 of 2017 whereby her appeal against the order dated 10.11.2017 in CC No. 656/15 of the District Forum dismissing her complaint was also dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in her complaint is that she had placed an order to the respondent to install two high quality HD CCTV Cameras at her flat and paid a sum of Rs.11,000/-. She on demand by the respondent subsequently paid Rs.2000/- for another camera. However, the respondent installed only one camera on 28.05.2015. She, however, later learnt that respondent had installed defective camera and did not install the HD CCTV camera and also did not repair the camera. On these contentions, she filed a complaint.
3. The opposite party took a plea that he had given an estimation of work of installation of CCTV camera vide order no. 181 dated 27.05.2015 for Rs.9860/-. She changed her mind and asked the respondent to supply two cameras for Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.11,710/. The respondent agreed for change and issued receipt of balance amount of Rs.7000/-. He took the plea that he had never promised the complainant for supply of HD CCTV cameras. He only promised to install Sony camera. When on 28.05.2015 he visited the complainant for installation of the CCTV cameras, she changed her mind and asked for installation of one camera. Accordingly, new work order dated 28.05.2015 was drawn for Rs.11,000/- minus Rs.1850/- for cost of one camera. The opposite party installed CCTV camera on the request of the complainant. On 28.05.2015. she complained that her neighbour had thrown yellow sarso at her doorstep and she wanted to record the movement of her neighbours. She was explained by the opposite party that camera can cover only particular range and angle of view and that the cameras were functioning properly. He had stated that false complaint has been filed.
4. The parties led their evidences before the District Forum. Before filing the affidavit of evidence, the complainant also filed her rejoinder wherein she again reiterated the claims in the complaint wherein she had stated that she had purchased HD CCTV camera.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, the District Forum has held as under:
“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 complaint 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 show 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.”
6. This order was impugned before the State Commission and the State Commission after re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidence on record has held as under:
“7. On perusa
