Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/88

Manwinder kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baljeet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

J.K Sharma

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   RUPNAGAR.

          Complaint Case No. 88 of 06.06.2022

                                                                                                       Date of Decision:21.04.2023

 

Manwinder Kaur wife of Gurtej Singh R/o village Behrampur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                                       …… Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Baljeet Singh, Prop. of Pabla Enterprises, Welding works at Bela Road, Near Garcha Petrol Pump, Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

2.Paramjit Singh Son of Baljit Singh R/O Bela Road Near Garcha Petrol Pump

   Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar

                                                                                      ……Opposite party

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Sh. J.K.Sharma, Advocate

 

For OP          :                Sh. Sukhvir Singh Bhangu, Advocate 

 

 

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the the opposite party is running the shop of welding and steel works with the name and style of Pabla Enterprises, welding works at Bela Road, near Garcha petrol pump, Chamkaur Sahib and the opposite party used to manufacturing/preparing the steel gates, grills etc. On 06.01.2022 the complainant approached the opposite party at his shop for the manufacturing/preparation of a steel gate for the house of the complainant and then the opposite party accompanied the complainant to her house for inspection of the spot and for the measurement of the gate and after taking the measurement of the gate, the opposite party told the complainant that the weight of the gate will be maximum 125 KG and the opposite party also assured the complainant that the opposite party will himself affix the said gate within and the opposite party also told the complainant that now the complainant no need to visit in the shop of the OP as the opposite party himself took the gate of the complainant to the house of the complainant after its preparation and will himself affix the same at the house of the complainant. The opposite party also assured the complainant that the weight of the said gate will not be more than 125 KG rather the same will also become less from 125 KG and the opposite party also assured that the quality of the steel grade will be 304 with guarantee of 10 years. The rate for preparation of the said gate was affixed as Rs.400/- per K.G. including GST and bills etc. between the opposite party and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 5000/- as advance money to the opposite party and it was agreed that the remaining amount will be paid by the complainant to the opposite party after the affixation of the gate at the house of the complainant. Thereafter, on 14.01.2022 the opposite party again approached the complainant and the opposite party demanded another amount of Rs. 15,000/- form the complainant as the opposite party have told the complainant that the opposite party was in urgent need of money for purchasing the material for the preparation of the gate. Then the complainant had paid another amount of Rs.15, 000/- to the opposite party on 14.01.2022.  On 28.02.2022 the opposite party approached the complainant and again on 03.03.2022 the opposite party have received another amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and in this, the opposite party have received an total amount of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant had paid the above said entire amount through Google pay i.e. online transaction. At the time of receiving the above said whole amount the opposite party again assured the complainant that the opposite party will affix the steel gate at the house of the complainant within short period. After that the complainant several times visited the shop of the OP and requested the opposite party to affix the gate at the opposite party to affix the gate at the house of the complainant as agreed by the opposite party, but the opposite party started putting the matter with one pretext or the other and has not affixed the steel till today. When the complainant again approached and requested the opposite party to either affix the gate at the house of the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/- with interest to the complainant, then the opposite party told the complainant that the steel gate of the complainant is prepared but its weight has become163 KG which is much more than as agreed by the opposite party and the opposite party also told the complainant that the opposite party will not affix the said gate at the house of the complainant and the complainant will herself  to arrange some other worker and convenience for the affixation of the said gate, which is  quite wrong and illegal as the opposite party has agreed to prepare the said gate maximum up to the weight of 125 KG. and the opposite party himself affix the gate at the house of the complainant, but now the opposite party become greedy and with the motive to grab more money from the complainant is now refusing to install the gate at the house of the complainant and for unnecessarily harassing and humiliating the complainant without any fault on the party of the complaint. On 24.03.2022 the opposite party told the complainant to remove the earlier gate installed in the house of the complainant as the opposite party has told the complainant that the opposite party has to install new gate in the house of the complainant in the evening of 24.03.2022 and as per the instruction of the OP, the complainant had removed the old gate, but the opposite party has not turned up to install the new gate and there was no gate at the house of the complainant for two days and the complainant was having every apprehension to her and her minor children’s life and liberty. The complainant is residing alone in the house along with her minor child and the opposite party is harassing and humiliating the complainant by taking the under advantage of aloneness of the complainant as her husband is away on job. Thereafter, the complainant through her counsel also served a registered legal notice dated 05.04.2022 to the opposite party through the registered post and the said notice was duly served on the address of the opposite paty and has been received by the OP, but despite this, the OP neither turned up to install the gate at the house of the complainant not the given any reply to the said notice till today hence this compliant. Due to the said act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and sought the following relies against the OPs:-

1. To refund the total amount of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per Annum from 06.01.2022 till the actual realization of the amount.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of physical, mental as well as financial harassment suffered by the complainant due to the above said wrong and illegal act and conduct of the OP and any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit be granted to the complainant.

2.  Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP has filed written reply, taking preliminary objections; that this complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no right to file the present complaint as the complaint Manwinder Kaur is neither the consumer of the answering respondents nor having any business terms or relations with the answering respondents in any manner. Even the answering respondents neither received any work order form the complaint nor received any amount from the complaint at any point of time, hence there is no relations of the complainant as consumer with the answering respondents as trader/manufacturer/ shop keeper. Thus, in view of the above said facts, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs on this short score alone; that the complaint has filed the present complaint on wrong and false facts and the allegation alleged in the complaint are totally false, forged, manipulated and concocted one and the same has been leveled just to grab the money from the answering respondents; that this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as it needs detail examination whether the complainant has given any amount to the respondents as alleged in the complaint and only the civil court is competent to look into the said matter; that the complainant has not approached in this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts form this Hon’ble Court, thus she is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Hon’ble Commission; that the complainant has filed this complaint just to harass and humiliate the respondents and to extract the money from the answering respondents under the garb of the present false and frivolous complaint; that the complainant has dragged the answering respondents into uncalled false and frivolous litigation just to harass and humiliate the answering respondents and to grab the money, thus the complaint be burdened with special costs. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never approached the OP at his show for the manufacturing of a steel gate. When the complainant never approached to the OP then the question of accompanying the complainant to her house for the inspection of spot, does not arise at all. Infact, the complainant has concocted the false and manipulated story. Whereas the true facts are that on 3.1.2022 one Gurtej Singh approached to the OPs shop for manufacturing the steel gate and on the asking of Gurtej Singh, the answering OP had given so many designs of the gate to him which was send by the OP to him on his whatsapp number and after going through the same, the said person had selected one design out of the said designs and he instructed the answering OP for the manufacturing the said design and the Gurtej Singh, paid Rs.35,000/- on different dates.

3. To prove their case, the learned counsel for the parties have placed on record their respective evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully.

5. It is admitted fact that the complainant had booked one steel gate after selection of design with the OP. During the pendency of the complaint, the Commission has tried to settle the matter between the parties amicably but of no result.The dispute is only in this complaint that the OP has failed to provide the services to the complainant in time. After going through the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that the complainant had ordered to install the steel gate at his house but the OP never installed the gate in time whereas the OP is duty bound for the same, therefore, the deficiency in service on behalf of OP stands proved. Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to service.

6. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the directions to the OP to refund the amount already paid by the complainant after deducting labour charges. He also paid Rs.3000/- as compensation along with Rs.2000/- as litigation charges. The OP is further complied with the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as free of cost. The file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. 

Announced:                                                     (Kuljit Singh)

21.4.2023                                                        President

 

 

                                                                        (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)

                                                                        Member