PROMILA BHALLA Vs. ANIL KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.