BENGALURU: A CCTV camera meant to provide home security ended up causing frustration for a city resident after it failed to detect human images. The Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed IM Technologies to refund the amount paid by the buyer, holding the firm guilty of deficiency in service.
Faulty CCTV fails to detect humans
According to the complaint, Gireesh B. Tophakhane, 54, a resident of BG Road, purchased a Godrej 2MP HD Dome colour camera from IM Technologies, Arekere, on March 1, 2023, along with fittings and other connected devices for his residence, spending a total of Rs 57,078.
Soon after installation, the CCTV system malfunctioned, failing to detect human images — the very function it was meant to serve. Gireesh approached the firm for rectification, but despite technicians visiting his residence, the issue remained unresolved. The firm allegedly refused to replace the product, claiming the specifications differed from those initially agreed upon.
Frustrated, Gireesh filed a consumer complaint on May 27, 2024, seeking a refund of the camera’s cost, Rs 1 lakh for mental agony, Rs 5 lakh as compensation, and Rs 1 lakh towards legal expenses.
Dealer held liable, Godrej absolved
During the proceedings, IM Technologies failed to appear and was placed ex parte. Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd., Mumbai, with its branch office at High Grounds, Bengaluru, contended that the complainant had purchased the camera from IM Technologies based on his own specifications.
The company further argued that the complainant altered his requirements later and cited email correspondence dated February 17, 2024, to deny any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service.
After examining the invoices, correspondence, and affidavit evidence, the consumer commission concluded that Gireesh had sufficiently proved his purchase and the malfunction of the camera. The panel observed that the CCTV camera, intended to detect human movement for security, failed to serve its essential purpose, and IM Technologies did not provide any rebuttal evidence.
“The firm cannot escape its liability as the evidence clearly demonstrates deficiency in service. No specific allegations are found against the other two manufacturers,” the commission noted.
Consequently, the complaint against Godrej & Boyce and its branch office was dismissed.
Refund and compensation
In its order dated August 11, 2025, the commission, presided over by Syed Anser Kaleem and Sharavathi S.M., directed IM Technologies to refund Rs 57,078 to Gireesh with 6% interest from the date of complaint filing until realisation. The firm was also ordered to pay Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs.
The ruling reinforces that sellers cannot evade accountability when consumers receive defective goods, especially in cases involving essential safety equipment like CCTV cameras.