Haryana

Panchkula

CC/363/2019

MR.RAJESH SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAR STEELS. - Opp.Party(s)

SAPNA VASUDEVA

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	363 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2023

 

1.     Sh. Rajesh Sharma s/o Sh. Satpal Sharma

2.     Smt. Sunita Sharma w/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma

        Both residents of House No.1875, Sector-28, Panchkula.

   ..….Complainants

Versus                                                                  

1.     Amar steels, plot no.119, Industrial Area Phase-1, Panchkula-    134109 through its proprietor

2.     Tata Steel Ltd. 15^th floor, Hindustan Times Building, KG Marg, New      Delhi-110001 through its Director.

3.     Tata Steels Ltd. Bombay House, 24 Homimody street, Mumbai-  400001, Maharashtra through its Director.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vikas Nagar, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3. 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant, after his retirement, approached OP No.1 in connection with the construction of his new house, who advised him to use Tata Steel doors in place of wooden doors. The OP No.1 informed them that he is the authorized dealer of TATA Steel Ltd. i.e. OP No.2, who manufacturers stainless steel doors for homes. He also showed OP No.2 companies brochure to impress the complainants. The complainants got influenced by the rosy picture portrayed by the OP No.1. Though the doors were very expensive for their budget, at Rs.4 Lacs approximately but they agreed to buy them. The OP No.1 organized a technical team of OP No.2, Sh. Rajesh Chauhan to visit their house for inspection and measurements of the doors. Sh. Rajesh Chauhan prepared a purchase order for 14 steel doors with 25% of the total cost as an advance payment for placing order. The complainants paid accordingly through a cheque no.843783 dated 29.11.2016 for Rs.1,00,450/- in favour of OP No.1. It is stated that approximately one month from the date of order, OP No.1 called the complainants and told them that out of 14 doors, which were initially ordered, five doors were not available and he asked the complainants to choose another design from the brochure. The complainants felt harassed in the hands of OPs, as they had selected only a particular design for their home, but with a heavy heart, they compromised and chose another design and confirmed the order. The OP No.1 agreed to deliver the new order. It is stated that after six months from the date of order, the doors were delivered to them on 24.05.2017. Before the delivery of the doors, the OP No.1 asked the complainants to pay 50% of the total sale price, and accordingly the complainants made another payment of Rs.2,00,000/- through RTGS in favour of the OP No.1. The complainants kept waiting for the doors to be installed but no person came to install the doors. Even after paying more than 3 lacs, the doors were not installed. The OP No.1 asked the complainants to contact OP No.2 directly as they had to send a technician to install the doors. The complainant personally spoke to OP No.2 Sales Officer Sh.Dheredner Shah and Sh. Pawan Sharma, posted in company’s headquarter in New Delhi for installation of the doors. Finally, in mid July, the doors were installed, but to the shock of the complainants, several defects were found in the steel doors and the installation thereof which are enumerated as below:-

a.     Fly mesh doors ordered had outdoor locks but delivered fly mesh       doors had outdoor locks only in two doors.

b.     The locks meant to be external were placed internally, which     means the doors could not be locked while going out of the house,     hence, there was a major security issue. Anyone could twist open      the knob of the lock and enter the house even when the door was      locked from inside.

c.      There was very visible gaps in all the door frames and the doors,       meaning it was an open invitation for files, mosquitoes and lizards    to creep inside the house.

d.     The steel door installed on terrace was also wrongly installed LHO       (Left hand open) instead of RHO(Right Hand open) as ordered in       purchase order.

e.     Manufacturing defect in the main double shutter door, there was a     visible gaping hole on the top of the door.

f.      The bathroom door was dented and the sheet of the door was very    rough and scratched everywhere which looked very ugly.

g.     Master bedroom door was also dented

h.     All doors had lining marks which could not be removed.

                It is stated that the complainant called the OP No.2’s Head Technical Sh. Pawan Ojha and apprised him of all the situation. On 16.10.2017, Sh. Ojha sent a technician, namely, Sh. Dhanajay to fix up all the defects. He inspected all the defects in the doors and accepted the mistake of the technical team, who had taken measurements of the doors before purchase order. It is stated that the complainant again wrote an email dated 07.03.2018 and requested the OPs to remove the defects. On 29.06.2018, Sh. Dhirender Visited the house of the complainants with Sh. Rajesh Chauhan. It is stated that the complainant has called Ops hundred times, requesting OPs to remove the defects but the OPs have stopped responding to the complainant. The complainant has already paid 75% of the total cost of the doors and even after passage of about four and a half years of making 75% of payment the complainant is being subjected to mental torture and harassment. On top of this, the complainant had to get installed CCTV cameras to feel safe in his own house, due to the constant danger of intruders hanging on their head. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections that  the complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainants has concealed the true and material facts. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is just the dealer and not the manufacturer or service provider of Tata Pravesh Door; the OP is not liable for any deficiency in services regarding wrong installation (LHO instead of RHO) or locking system etc. It is submitted that the complainants approached  the OP no.1 and placed an order of purchase of iron rods for the construction of their house and ultimately, the OP No.1 being the service providers of Tata Pravesh Doors, forwarded the order of the complainants to Tata Pravesh Door and thereafter, the representative of the distributor of Tata Steel, namely, Rajesh Sharma visited the site of the complainants along with the engineers/ Representative and took all the measurements and all the doors installation work was done by the representative/engineers of the Tata Pravesh Doors and the OP No.1 has nothing to do with the same. It is stated that the material was supplied to the complainants but inspite of that, the complainants have not paid the amount of Rs.97,800/-  to the OP No.1, which is pending due from 13.06.2017. It is submitted that the material i.e. steel doors etc. as ordered by the complainants was delivered to them but they had not paid the amount of Rs.97,800/- to OP No.1 which is still outstanding towards them since 13.06.2017.

                On merits, it is denied that OP No.1 had organized a technical team to visit the house of the complainants as alleged. It is submitted that the representative of the distributor of the Tata Steel, namely, Rajesh Sharma, had visited the house of the complainant alongwith the team of engineers, who had noted down all the measurements and the installation work was completed by the said engineer’s team. It is submitted that the delay in the delivery as well as installation of the steel doors had occurred because some stone work was under process at the house of the complainants and there was no deficiency on any count in any manner on the part of OP No.1. It is submitted that the distributor of Tata Steel had informed the OP No.1 that the 5 doors out of 14 doors, which had been ordered, were not available as the design of the same had become obsolete and accordingly, the complainants after going through the fresh Brochure had placed the order qua five designs. It is submitted that it is the distributor of Tata Steel, who is manufacturer of the doors, and who is liable to rectify the defects in the doors and further the OP No.1 had made remaining payment of Rs.97,800/- on his own on behalf of the complainants to the distributor of Tata Steel on their demand. Therefore, the OP No.1 is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.97,800/- from the complainants  and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                Upon notice, the OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections such as mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, time barred; no locus-standi and no cause of action.

                On merits, it is submitted that the OPs are a reputed company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of branded Steel and Steel Products(including  Steel Doors) having its presence in global market  and is one of the top most rated companies in India; the Ops supplies products to many distributors pan India and the Distributors as per market requirement works with several local dealers. The OP No.1 could be one of such dealers dealing in retail markets with the products of OPs and also of other manufactures. The OP does not have any transaction with OP No.1. It is submitted that the representative of the OPs have never visited complainant’s premises for conducting any inspection. It is pertinent to mention that the installation of the doors was done by the distributor and his local dealer. The statements made by complainant regarding the purchase/payment/ delivery of doors from OP No.1 are denied for want of knowledge. The OPs are completely unaware of the purchase of the products in question and any developments with regard to the subject transaction. It is submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant that he has personally spoken and written emails to the representative of the Ops are false and baseless and hence denied. It is submitted that the complainants never contacted the OPs. It is denied that Sh.Dherender Shah and Sh.Pawan Sharma were the sales officers of the OPs. The Ops reiterated that the complainants have never contacted the OPs in any manner. It is pertinent to mention that the consumer help line number/email of the Ops is mentioned in the product brochure/ website of the OPs. It is submitted that the OPs learnt about this matter only after receiving a notice from this Forum. It is humbly submitted that it is extremely necessary for the Ops to inspect the allegedly defective products at the premises of the complainant. It is stated that in case, it is found that the alleged defective products are genuine ‘Pravesh’ doors, which qualifies the warranty norms mentioned in the warranty card, product brochure etc. and has some manufacturing defects, then in the interest of Consumer centricity, the OPs will take necessary steps for removal of defects and in case, the defects are not repairable, the OPs will replace the product and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3.The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-2/A and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant, OP No.1 as well as OPs No. 2 & 3 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant,  OP No.1  as well as OPs No.2 & 3, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainants reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure C-A and contended that the Ops had been deficient, while rendering the services to them on the following counts:-

i.      That the delivery of the steel doors, as ordered by the      complainants, as well as the installation thereof, was made after a        period of six months, in violation  of the stipulations contained in        the booking order dated 29.11.2016(Annexure C-2) and modified    order(Annexure C-3). It is contended that the delivery of the steel      doors as per booking order was to be made upto mid February       whereas the delivery of the same was made in May and the     installation of the steel doors was made in the month of July.

ii.      That the steel doors as delivered as well as the installation thereof      at the residence of the complainants had certain defects, which were not rectified despite several requests made by the       complainants to Ops.

6.The OP No.1 has denied its deficiency in the matter stating that the booking order for the delivery of the product in question was forwarded by it to Tata Pravesh Door and the installation as well as the delivery of the product in question was made by the Distributor of OP No.2. The learned counsel/Authorised representative reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure R-1/A and contended that there was no delay on the part of OP No.1 because the complainant had asked the Ops not to deliver the steel doors because of construction work undergoing at their house.  It is contended that a sum of Rs.97,800/- is still outstanding against the complainants and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.  

7.The learned counsel on behalf of the OPs No.2 & 3, during arguments, reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit Annexure R-2/A and contended that the complainant had never contacted the OPs No.2 & 3 qua the issues raised in the present complaint. It is contended that the matter involved in the present complaint had come into notice of the OPs No.2 & 3 only after the receipt of notice from the Commission and thus, no deficiency of any kind in any manner can be attributed on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 regarding delay etc. as alleged. It is contended that the OPs NO.2 & 3, being the manufacturer are not liable for any lapses and deficiencies on the part of its dealer and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OPs No.2 & 3. Reliance has been placed the following case laws:-

i.      General Motors (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat (2015) 1 SCC 429.

ii.       Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors. 2021 SCC Online 125.

iii.       Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council of Kerala (1994) 1 SCC           397.

 

8.Admittedly, the initial booking order(Annexure C-2), being based on the technical inputs qua measurement etc. provided by the team of engineers as arranged by the OP No.1, was placed by the complainants on 29.11.2016 and amended order qua five steel doors was placed, after a month, vide Annexure C-3, seeking the delivery of steel doors etc.  It is also evident that the said orders containing the measurements, specific code of the design of steel doors were prepared by the team of engineers as arranged by the OP No.1. The payment of an amount of Rs. 1,00,450/- on 29.11.2016 vide cheque no.843783/- and another payment of Rs.2,00,000/- vide RTGS on 24.05.2017 by the complainants in favour of OP No.1 is also not in dispute.

9.Now, coming to the first grievance of the complainants qua delayed delivery of the steel doors by the Ops, it is found that the same were delivered on 24.05.2017 and the installation thereof was made in the month of July 2017, which was clearly in violation of the stipulations contained in the delivery order Annexure C-2 & C-3 whereas the delivery date was mid February.

10.The only defence taken by the OP No.1 is that the delay in the delivery of the product in question had occurred because of the undergoing construction work at the house of the complainant but no documentary evidence in support of its contentions has been placed on record. There is no correspondence on record which shows that the OPs were ever asked by the complainants to delay the delivery of steel doors.  

11.We have perused the email dated 07.07.2017 followed by email dated 08.07.2017, 23.07.2017(Annexure C-6), Annexure C-6 (colly) & Annexure C-7 sent by the complainants to the engineers of Ops, asking them to install the doors at their residence; as such delay in the delivery of the product as well as the installation thereof is well proved on the part of OP No.1.

12.Now, coming to the defects in the steel doors as well as the installation thereof at the residence of the complainants, it is found that an application was moved by OPs No.2 & 3 on 10.02.2022 seeking the permission to inspect the alleged defective product by its technical team. The said application was allowed by the Commission on the same day i.e. 10.02.2022 and the case was adjourned to 21.03.2022 and thereafter, on 22.04.2022, 07.04.2022, 27.04.2022, 18.05.2022 & 22.07.2022 but no inspection report was placed on record by OPs No.2 & 3. However, on 15.09.2022, Sh.Shubham Srivastav, Authorised representative of OPs No.2 & 3(Sales & Business development manager) of OPs No.2 & 3, has made a statement that the site inspection was conducted him along with authorized representative and vide his said statement, he had under taken to replace the four existing external doors with new one and one RAL door on the terrace with new one subject to the making of the balance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainants to OPs. As per said statement suffered by said Sh.Shubham Srivastav read with technical report(Annexure C-8 & Annexure C-11), wherein defects in the doors have been clearly admitted, the allegations of the complainants qua the defects in the doors stand well established beyond any doubt and accordingly, the OPs i.e. OP No.1(local dealer) and the OPs No.2 & 3 i.e. the manufacturer of Tata Pravesh steel doors, are held deficient, while rendering services to the complainants, for which, they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainants.

13.Coming to relief, it may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the complainants has stated that the grievances of the complainants would be entirely redressed, in case, the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the four external fly-mesh doors, one terrace door (wrongly installed) and the main door(double shutter (wrongly installed)) with new one. The prayer of the learned counsel for the complainants qua granting of compensation on account of CCTV installation is declined as the same was got installed by the complainants for their own safety and comfort. In addition to above, the learned counsel has also prayed for the granting of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges respectively.

14.As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1, 2 & 3:-

1. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the four external fly-mesh doors, one terrace door (wrongly installed) & the main door(double shutter(wrongly installed)) with new one, free of costs subject to the making of remaining payment of Rs.97,800/- by the complainants to OPs. It is clarified that no installation charges, which will be incurred in carrying out the incidental civil work, during the installation of the said doors, shall be demanded by the OPs No. 2 & 3 from the complainants. It is further clarified that the Ops No.2 & 3 shall be entitled to take back the replaced defective doors, if they so desire.
2. The OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them.
3. The OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- as litigation charges.

                               

 15.The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the directions/ order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 19.09.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

 

CC.363 of 2019

Present:             Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vikas Nagar, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.                 

 

                       Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 19.09.2023 for orders.

Dt.11.09.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Vikas Nagar, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.                 

 

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 19.09.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President