Haryana

Panchkula

CC/391/2020

MUKESH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARMAAN DECOR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

25 Apr 2022

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	391 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	17.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.04.2022

 

Mukesh Kumar Age 38 years son of Sh.Mahabir Garg Prop. Of M/s Maa Jawalaji Plywood Traders Sai Road Baddi, resident of House No.724, Sector-11, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                        Versus.

Armaan Decor, All type Interior Work, SCO No.58 Ranjan Plaza, Chandigarh road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali-160403 through its Prop./Owner/Authorised Signatory.                                                                                                                                    ....Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.    

                        Ms. Rani Bhavjot Kaur Bhullar, Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case is that in the year 2019 complainant has decided to purchase HPL Sheets for fundermex work of house in question, for which one Ms.Sonia visited the site of the complainant and recommended, the HPL Sheet of Company of Merino Laminates being the Merino is world level brand and the product having the warranty of 10 years. On the assurance of the OP, the complainant finalized shades and articles and demanded the estimated budget, which was supplied by the OP to the tune of Rs.1,26,350/-, having 10 years warranty of replacement in case of any defect, such as colour fade etc. through whatsapp. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 21.08.2019 and Rs.40,000/- on 28.08.2019 through his bank account No.30660100010006, Bank of Baroda at Baddi for purchase of HPL sheets. The complainant purchased 11Nos. HSN code No.4823 of High Pressure laminate Sheet from the OP through e.way bill bearing No.3211-4141-7912, dated 31.08.2019 in the sum of Rs.91,379/- inclusive all taxes. The complainant also purchased 96sq. ft. HPL sheets mark 10659 @ Rs.220/- per sq.ft. through bill No.022, dated 30.8.2019 in the sum of Rs.24,921.6 inclusive all taxes by way of cash payment. The complainant also purchased 64sq ft HPL sheets 10659 @ Rs.220 sq. ft. vide bill 034, dated 18.10.2019 in the sum of Rs.16,614.4 inclusive all taxes. In this way, the complainant had paid total amount of Rs.1,31,536/- for purchase of HPL Sheets and the OP also supplied the product warranty certificate for 10 years from the date of purchased i.e. 18.10.2019 to next 10 years, wherein the colour fade or any other defects was fully covered. After sometime from the purchase of HPL sheets, the complainant further alleged that he was shocked to see that the colour of HPL sheets started to be faded, for which the complainant contacted to the OP and visited the showroom of the OP, requesting him, either to replace the defective HPL sheets or to refund the cost of the same, but opposite party not heard the genuine request of the complainant. In this regard, the complainant made so many complaints to the Op through whatsapp chat with the Mr. Pankaj on mobile No-9915484191, but no action was taken by the OP till date. Finding no alternative, on 24.10.2020, the complainant made written complaint through email to the Marketing Head of Marino India and brought to the notice of Marino Company that the OP selling the HPL sheets in its name and issuing the fake product warranty certificate on its behalf.  The complainant further alleged that in response to his email complaint, one Sh.Vikas Mahajan, Authorised representative of the Marino Company visited the site of the complainant and on checking of the sheets told that the HPL sheets supplied/sold by the OP are not original brand of Marino India and warranty certificate as handed over to the complainant by the OP is also not issued by their company. The Marino Company has also examined the HPL sheets which was supplied by the OP to the complainant and vide report dated 13-10-2020 Sh.R.K.Dixit Senior G.M. Production of M/s Marino Panel Products Ltd, Jhajjar, Haryana has given his report in writing that the supply HPL Sheets are not their material. In the testing report of M/s Marino Panel Products Ltd had also declared that the material used in the product is unsatisfactory. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objection, the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, admitted that the complainant approached to the OP for the purchasing of HPL sheets and discussed various available options extensively, but denied that the OP or his representative ever advised the complainant to purchase the HPL sheets of a company ‘Marino Laminates’ and no commitment or even advice regarding 10 years warranty was ever given by the OP and the averments of the complainant with regard to 10 years warranty of sheets is totally false. No doubt the complainant discussed the price of HPL sheets available with the OP and also compared with the Marino HPL Laminates. The OP tried to convince the complainant to purchase HPL laminates manufactured by some other company of repute as the OP is not an authorized agent of ‘Marino Laminates’. The budget amounting to Rs.1,26,350/- was discussed with the complainant for a brand of HPL sheets other than Marino Laminates. The OP or any of his representatives never promised to the complainant to supply HPL sheets of Marino Laminates with ten years warranty. Payment of Rs.90,000/- has duly been received by the OP in two installments. The HPL sheets were supplied as per bill Ex.C.5, but no product warranty certificate Ex.C.7 has been provided by the OP to the complainant, it appears to be a fake document and has been arranged or fabricated by the complainant to build up this false case.  As a goodwill gesture the OP had replaced 7 HPL sheets at the house of the complainant, but the complainant concealed this fact from this Hon’ble Commission, even the complainant had not returned the 7 replaced HPL sheets to the OP. The OP has no knowledge of any correspondence between the complainant and the Marino Company. The OP is not responsible for what has allegedly transpired between the complainant and any other company through e-mails or otherwise. It is clarified that the Marino Company has not approached the OP in any manner whatsoever to seek any clarification or otherwise, in this manner. The OP is not an authorized sale agent of Marino Company and has not supplied any HPL sheets manufactured by the Marino Company to the complainant. The complainant mischievously trying to fabricate documents and built a false narrative to file a false complaint against the OP in order to mint some money from OP. The OP supplied the sheets selected by the complainant to his satisfaction. The same were happily installed at the house of the complainant and he has no objection qua name of any brand or quality of the product etc. The OP has not committed any unfair trade practice and has not committed any act of omission and commission.  The complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OP was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OP.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 in evidence and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavits Annexure RA & RB along with document Annexure R/1 to R/3 into evidence and close the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted the invoice which clearly shows the sale of Marino Company products bearing the specific number 10659 by the OP to an another consumer, which is placed on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case. The learned counsel for the OP has submitted the written estimate bears the signature of complainant, which is placed on record as Mark ‘B’, for the proper adjudication of the case.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through the entire record including written arguments filed by the ld. Counsel for the OP, minutely and carefully.

6.             There is no dispute between the parties qua the purchase/ sale and delivery of High Pressure Laminate Sheets (hereinafter referred to as HPL Sheets) by the OP to the complainant on 30.08.2019, 31.08.2019 and 18.10.2019 vide invoice amounting to Rs.24,921.6 (Annexure C-5), e-way bill amounting to Rs.91,379.20 (Annexure C-4) and  invoice amounting to Rs.16,614.4 (Annexure C-6) respectively. Further, there is no dispute qua the payments made by the complainant on several dates to OP in lieu of the purchase price of the HPL Sheets and the installation/labour charges thereof. There is a serious dispute between the parties qua the quality as well as the brand of the HPL Sheets. As per complainant, the OP had represented and assured to deliver the HPL Sheets of good quality, manufactured by Marino Company, having a warranty of ten years but the OP supplied the sub-standard HPL Sheets of inferior quality and not manufactured by Marino Company.

7.             On the other hand, the OP has denied the contentions of the complainant with regard to the quality as well as the brand of the HPL Sheets. The learned counsel for the OP contended that there was no written or oral agreement with the complainant or a quotation or even an oral promise made by the OP to supply the HPL Sheets, manufactured by the Marino Company, and that the OP never advised the complainant to buy the HPL sheets made by Marino company having ten years warranty. The learned counsel invited our attention towards the written estimate, which is placed on record as Mark ‘B’ and bearing the signature of complainant, in support of his contention that the complainant was never assured or promised the supply of HPL Sheets manufactured by the Marino Company. It is contended that the complainant was fully satisfied at the time of delivery of HPL Sheets as well as installation thereof in the house of the complainant and there was no objection with regard to the quality of the HPL sheets from the side of the complainant. It is contended that the Annexure C-1 showing the shade of the HPL Sheets, Annexure C-2 showing the total estimate amounting to Rs.1,26,350/- as well as the product warranty certificate (Annexure C-7) containing the warranty of ten years are fake and bogus documents having no connection whatsoever with the OP. It is vehemently contended that the OP have not supplied the Marino made sheets for the simple reason that the OP is not an authorised agent of Marino Company. It is further argued that the complainant has failed to show any evidence that the OP did not supply HPL sheets of good quality to the complainant strictly as per the negotiations held with him and that the seven sheets, which were perfectly fine, were replaced as a goodwill gesture. Continuing arguments, the learned counsel has contended that the complainant has concealed the factum of replacement of seven sheets from the Hon’ble Commission and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             Admittedly, the seven HPL sheets, out of total 16 sheets, were replaced after a period 5-6 months from their installations. As per complainant, the colour of the HPL Sheets got faded on account of their sub-standard and inferior quality but according to OP, the seven replaced sheets were perfectly fine having no defect. The version of the OP is not tenable as the factum of replacement of the seven HPL Sheets after a very short period i.e. 5-6 months itself from their purchase establishes the inferior and sub-standard quality of HPL Sheets. Moreover, the report of Marino HPL Company, which is available on record as Annexure C-11, supports the version of the complainant with regard to the unsatisfactory quality of the HPL Sheets. In the presence of said testing report (Annexure C-11) of Marino HPL Company, It was incumbent upon the OP to place on record the testing report from any Authorised lab so as to disprove and falsify the contention of the complainant regarding the fading of the colour of HPL Sheets but the OP preferred not to bring on record any such report for the reasons best known to it. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value and thus, it is concluded that the colour of HPL Sheets  got faded within a very short period after their delivery. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no specific denial in the written statement pertaining to the fading of the colour of the sheets. It is the specific averment of the complainant in Para No.6 of the complaint that the colour of the HPL Sheets was faded within 5-6 months. In view of the specific averments regarding the quality of HPL sheets, it was incumbent upon the OP to clearly prove on the basis of the credible, adequate and cogent evidence that the quality of the HPL Sheets was good and there was no fading of the colour of the sheets as alleged by the complainant. 

9.             Now, adverting to the issue of supply of HPL Sheets manufactured by Marino Company, it is clear as per test report (Annexure C-10) that the HPL Sheets installed at the house of the complainant were not of Marino Company. Further, the warranty certificate, which is tendered on record as Annexure C-7 by the complainant was also not issued by the Marino Company as per e-mail conversation(Annexure C-9). Though, according to OP, the Annexure C-1 showing the shade of the HPL Sheets, Annexure C-2 showing the total estimate amounting to Rs.1,26,350/- as well as the product warranty certificate(Annexure C-7) containing the warranty of ten years are fake and bogus documents having no connection whatsoever with the OP but the Annexure C-1 clearly without any doubt in any manner indicate that the particular number i.e. 10659  denotes the product manufactured by Marino Company/Marino Laminates. It is not the case of the OP that the above mentioned specific/particular number i.e.10659 shows anything else instead of the product manufactured by Marino Company/Marino Laminates. Now, coming to the invoice Annexure C-5 amounting to Rs.24,921.6, it is found that 96sqrft. HPL Sheets i.e. 3 sheets one each measuring 32 sqr. ft. were sold by the OP mentioning therein the above mentioned specific/particular number i.e.10659, which undoubtedly belongs to Marino Company. Therefore, it is clear that the OP sold the HPL sheets to the complainant stating and representing the same to be manufactured by Marino Company.

10.            Apart from above, serious lapse and deficiency has been found on the part of the OP while not submitting the bill as per original bill/invoice book. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP vide Para No.4 of the Affidavit Annexure RB has categorically stated that the HPL Sheets worth Rs.24,921/- were supplied on 20.08.2019 vide bill no.22 dated 20.08.2019 and in support of the said assertions, copy of the bill Annexure R-2 has been placed on record. In the written statement, it was categorically admitted that the HPL Sheets worth Rs.24,921/- were supplied on 30.08.2019 vide bill no.22 dated 30.08.2019, whereas now in the affidavit, as mentioned above, it is stated that the HPL Sheets were supplied vide bill dated 20.08.2019. Both the bills vary qua the date; it means the OP has not submitted the photocopy of the bill in question as per the original bill/invoice book, which is kept by it at its own level for record. The non-submissions of the bill as per original bill/invoice book by the OP amounts to indulging into unfair trade practice. Further, the OP has withheld the submission of copy of bill as per original bill/invoice book qua the e.way bill bearing No.3211-4141-7912, dated 31.08.2019 in the sum of Rs.91,379/-.

11.            Furthermore, the contentions of the OP that it does not sell the HPL Sheets manufactured by Marino Company as it is not an authorised dealer of Marino Company is also found false and incorrect in the light of the invoice Mark ‘A’, which clearly shows the sale of Marino company products bearing the specific number 10659 by the OP to an another consumer. The OP has not disputed the genuineness of the said invoice Mark ‘A’ and thus, it is clearly established that the OP had sold the HPL Sheets in question to the complainant stating and representing the same to be manufactured by HPL Company. In the light of aforementioned facts, it is concluded that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP while rendering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

12.            Coming to relief, it is found that the complainant has claimed the refund of sum of Rs.1,31,536/- which was paid by him to the OP on account of purchase of HPL Sheets on several dates. Apart from it, a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of mental  agony and harassment as well as a compensation of Rs.31,000/- on account litigations charges has also been claimed. In the light of above stated facts, we deem it fair and reasonable to direct the Op to refund the sum of Rs.1,31,536/- alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The OP is entitled to detach/remove the HPL sheets as installed in the house of the complainant. The complainant is directed to permit the OP or its any representative to detach/remove the HPL sheets installed in the house of the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the seven HPL sheets to the OP, which were replaced by installing new seven HPL Sheets. It is clarified that the OP shall bear the expenses, at its own level, incurred in the removal of the HPL sheets. The OP is further directed to complete the exercise of removal of HPL Sheets as directed above within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the communication of this order. The OP is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.

13.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP No.1 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 OP. 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: 25.04.2022

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

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

 

                                          Satpal

                                         President