Punjab

Amritsar

CC/15/302

Akashdeep Hospital - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashoka Glass Syndicate - Opp.Party(s)

Viney Khera

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
SCO 100, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue
Amritsar
Punjab
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/302
 
1. Akashdeep Hospital
Majitha Road, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Ashoka Glass Syndicate
Opp Anand Avenue, Old Jail, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Bhupinder Singh PRESIDENT
  Kulwant Kaur MEMBER
  Anoop Lal Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Viney Khera, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 302 of 2015

Date of Institution : 12.5.2015

Date of Decision : 10.09.2015

 

Akashdeep Hospital, through its Prop. Dr. Ashish Kumar, Majitha Road, Amritsar

 

...Complainant

Vs.

Ashoka Glass Syndicate through its Prop/Partner Opp.Anand Avenue, Old Jail Road, Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh.Viney Khera,Advocate

For the opposite party : Ex-parte

 

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

 

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

 

1 Present complaint has been filed by Akashdeep Hospital under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant got affixed the slide glass door at the entrance of the hospital of the complainant on payment of Rs. 24204/- which included the cost of the door and its labour for installation the sliding glass door. The complainant paid the said amount in the shape of two bills of Rs. 9804/- and Rs. 15400/- which were duly received by the opposite party. The said door was installed on 7.4.2015 and after installing the same the complainant pointed out the opposite party that the said door is not sliding/working properly and it was assured by the opposite party that since the material in which the door glass has been affixed is new one and with the passage of time the same shall work properly. According to the complainant on the next day i.e. 8.4.2015 the said door collapsed and the glass used in the sliding door broken down. Complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party and opposite party assured that the same shall be replaced immediately, but finally refused to replace the same. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the broken glass with new one. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. Opposite party did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.6.2015. Later on Sh. Navjeevan Sharma, Advocate appeared on 27.7.2015 and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage but thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite party and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.8.2015.

3 In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, additional affidavit Ex.C-2 alongwith documents Ex.C-3 and C-4.

4. We have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.

5. From the record i.e. averments of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant got affixed the slide glass door at the entrance of the hospital of the complainant on payment of Rs. 24204/- which included the cost of the door and its labour for installation . The complainant paid the said amount in the shape of two bills of Rs. 9804/- Ex.C-3 dated 20.2.2015 and bill of Rs. 15400/- Ex.C-4 dated 7.4.2015. the said door was installed by the opposite party on 7.4.2015. At that time the complainant pointed out to the opposite party that the said door is not sliding/working properly. However, opposite party assured that as the material in which the door glass has been affixed is new one and with the passage of time the same shall function properly. However, on the next day i.e. 8.4.2015 the said door collapsed and the glass used in sliding door broken down. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party, who assured that they would replace the glass and make the door fully functional. But they did not replace the same and ultimately refused to replace the same. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

6. The complainant through his affidavit Ex.C-1 proved all the averments as alleged in the complaint and he also proved on record the payments made by the complainant to the opposite party regarding affixing of the sliding glass door at the entrance of the hospital of the complainant by the opposite party vide bill Ex.C-3 and C-4.

7. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as opposite party did not file any written version to counter the case of the complainant nor any person on behalf of the opposite party dared to file affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant. No doubt Sh. Navjeevan Sharma,Adv appeared on behalf of the opposite party and filed power of attorney but he did not file any written version nor produced any evidence. Later on he himself did not turn up and the opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte.

8. So from the ex-parte unchallenged and unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that sliding glass door affixed by the opposite party at the entrance of the hospital on 7.4.2015 collapsed on the very next day i.e. 8.4.2015, as a result of which glass used in the sliding door broken down. All this happened due to the fact that the same was not properly installed by the opposite party. Resultantly the opposite party is liable to change the glass used by the opposite party in the sliding glass door and to make the door properly functional, but the opposite party failed to do so.

9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to replace the broken sliding glass of the door with new one and make the sliding glass door fully functional within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

 

10.9.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

 

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member

 
 
[ Sh. Bhupinder Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Kulwant Kaur]
MEMBER
 
[ Anoop Lal Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.