AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") dated 11.7.2015 in first appeal No.473/2016.
Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that he purchased security system from opposite parties in total consideration of Rs.59,509.99. The security system included intelligent burglary alarm system with one year warranty, remote system, panic button, door sensor, fire/smoke sensor, internet, DVR, 4 CCTV cameras & internal and external hooter. According to the petitioner the internal DVR system started giving trouble since installation for which complaint was made to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to remove the defects. The opposite party thereafter was requested either to replace the system with an effective system or refund the money but the opposite party refused to do so. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, Gurgaon seeking refund of the cost of the system, besides compensation under various heads.
The opposite party on being served with the notice contested the complaint. In the written statement the opposite party denied the allegations of the complaint and tried to shift the blame on the defective internet service.
The District Forum on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that only the DVR system was defective and was not functioning properly. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the respondent/opposite party to refund to the complainant the price of DVR system Rs.26,000/- alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization of the amount. Besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded.
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. State Commission on re-appreciation of the evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal in limine .
Learned Shri Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that Foras below have committed a grave error in failing to appreciate that the petitioner had purchased a complete package and, therefore, the Foras below ought to have granted refund of the entire cost of the package with interest. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the photocopy of the invoice.
On perusal of invoice it transpires that the petitioner had purchased the intelligent burglary system with one year warranty, remote system, panic button, door sensor, fire/smoke sensor, internet, DVR, 4 CCTV cameras & internal and external hooter. The cost of the entire hardware was Rs.59.509.99 inclusive of the installation. So far as internal DVR system alongwith cameras is concerned, it is entirely distinct system having no connection with the burglary system, panic button, door sensor or fire sensor etc. Therefore, we do not find any material irregularity in the orders of the Foras below particularly when the complaint is only with respect to the functioning of the DVR system, for which Foras below have directed refund with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till the realization of the amount. Thus, in our view there is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed.
Opposite party to comply with the order within 30 days, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order.