25 Sep 2023 12:00 PM GMT
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera’s Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to...
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera’s Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.
The complainant purchased seven 7 MP Nikvision cameras, and 1 Digital Video Recorder (DVR) for Rs. 49,975/- from M/S Advance Technology (“Seller”) on December 10, 2021, with a one-year warranty for installation. The seller was the authorized dealer of the manufacturer of the cameras, Nikvision Camera’s India Private Limited (“Manufacturer”). From the beginning, the cameras and the DVR did not function properly, with low image clarity. The complainant reported the issue, and the seller attempted a repair but was unsuccessful. They later suggested that the problem might be with an old LCD and advised the complainant to purchase a new LG 43” LED TV for Rs. 37,000. However, this did not improve the camera's performance.
Despite repeated attempts, the seller failed to rectify the defects, citing manufacturing issues. They took one camera for further inspection but were unable to resolve the problem. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the seller and the manufacturer, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (“District Commission”).
Before the District Commission, the seller contended that there was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice. Further, the complainant did not approach the District Commission with clean hands and he must be estopped by his conduct as he never approached the seller with any type of problem related to the cameras. On the other hand, the manufacturer did not appear before the District Commission, so the order proceeded ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission allocated liability to the manufacturer. The District Commission was of the view that the manufacturer has neither contested the claim of the complainant, nor he has rebutted the evidence put forth by the complainant. The manufacturer’s silence was deemed as its admission of the complainant’s claim. On the other hand, no liability was allocated to the seller of the cameras and the DVR.
Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the manufacturer was ordered to refund Rs. 49,975/- for the products bought by the complainant. The manufacturer was also ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a consolidated compensation for mental agony, harassment and legal costs.
Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No.185 of 2022
Advocate for the Complainant: None
Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sh. Tajinder Pal Singh Advocate (For Opposite Party 1)