BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.243 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 22.07.2022

      Date of Decision: 28.04.2023

Gursharnpreet Singh aged about 45 years son of Sh. Ajit Singh resident of Village Mehsempur, Tehsil, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar at present residing at VPO Mehatpur, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Anand Hardwares, Parjian Road, Mehatpur, Tehsil Nakodar    through its Proprietor Sunny Setia.

2.       Branch Manager, Action TESA, Sector-47, Phase-2 SAS Nagar,       Mohali, Punjab-160055 Near Bassi Theater.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Rajeev Bhutani, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is constructing the new house at VPO Mehatpur, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. The complainant has purchased action tesa bollo (boiling water proof HD BOARD) from OP No.1, vide bill No.419 dated 25.03.2021 dealer of OP No.2. At the relevant time before making purchase company representative of OP No.2 visited house of the complainant and they both guaranteed to the complainant can use it as frame (molding) of door or window etc. or anywhere as per requirement of the complainant and after getting assurance from the both the parties, the complainant purchased the HDFC boards and he used this board as molding on the door and window as frame of door and window in his house but after some time this board molding expanded and contracted itself with the change in weather. When this board expands itself they broke floor’s tiles and when contracted it left gaps. In the October 2021, these defected were found in board by the complainant and he informed about the fault to OP No.1 personally but he said that they cannot do anything in this regard and advised to contact the OP No.2 and accordingly, the complainant approached to representative of OP No.2/Mr. Davinder on telephone. Then after some days said representative came to house of complainant and inspected the whole defected board but with no effect and thereafter again the complainant approached to representative Mr. Davinder and he visited and informed about some technical official and then some officials of company visited the house of complainant and they found that board is defective and the same was required to be replaced and they also promised to find solution of the problem within 1 or 2 days but till date, no solution has been delivered. On the contrary, when the complainant again called the representative, they replied that they couldn't do anything regarding the defect. The apathetic attitude of OP, caused mental tension, harassment, insult and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant had also issued earlier a notice vide dated 21.12.2021 through email to the customer care services of the OP No.2, but no response and reply send by the OP. Due to the deficiency of services on the part of OPs, the complainant suffered a great mental agony and financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective HDF Boards and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but the OP No.2 refused to receive the same and ultimately the OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas on the other hand, the OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply without affidavit and it is admitted by the OP No.1 that the complainant has purchased action tesa bollo (boiling water proof HDF BOARD) with guarantee from OP No.1. On the complaint of the complainant, the OP called Mr. Davinder company representative and then after some days said representative came to house of complainant and inspected the whole defected board and during inspection Mr. Davinder informed that he found that board is defected and the same was required to be replaced and he also recommended the OP for replacement and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant has produced on the file his respective evidence alongwith affidavit.

5.                After filing written statement by the OP No.1, none has appeared on his behalf to argue the case since last so many dates and ultimately, OP No.1 also proceeded against exparte.

6.                It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased action tesa bollo (boiling water proof HDF BOARD) from the OP. The complainant has proved the invoice of the boiling water proof HDF BOARD Ex.C-1. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 is the dealer of the OP No.2 and at the relevant time before making the purchase, the representatives of both the parties assured and guaranteed the complainant that the complainant can use it as frame (molding) of door or window etc. or anywhere as pre requirement of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that when he used the board as molding on the door and window as frame of the door, the same expanded and contracted itself with the change in weather. The grudge of the complainant is that when he contacted the OP No.1, he asked the complainant to approach the OP No.2. When the representative of the OP No.2 visited his house, he found that the board is defective and he assured to replace the same, but he has not replaced the board till the filing of the complaint. Though, the OPs No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte, but the OP No.1 had filed written reply. In written reply, the OP No.1 has admitted the purchase of action tesa bollo from him. He has admitted the case of the complainant in the written reply. The complainant has alleged that they gave guarantee that this board can be used as molding. Perusal of Ex.C-1 nowhere shows that any guarantee was given by the OP No.1 or OP No.2. The complainant has also not produced on record any rules or detail of the HDF Board Company that the same board can be used as molding for the door and window. The OP No.1 has admitted that the representative of the OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and told him that the board is defective, but there is no document on the record to prove that the board was defective and there is manufacturing defect. This has not come on record as to whether the representative of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant in his presence or he has informed him about the defective board. The complainant is to prove his own case. It was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the guarantee was given by the OPs and the HDF Board was defective. The OP No.1 has collided with the complainant, therefore on his simple admission, the complainant cannot be given the relief as has been claimed by him. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

28.04.2023         Member                          Member           President