Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

cc/112/2016

Satkar Finance Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Beant Aluminium Fitting - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2016

                                                                Date of institution:  28.11.2016                                

                                                                 Date of decision   :  14.07.2017

1. Satkar Finance Company, Kang Market, Khamanon through its Partner Harkaran Singh Kang.
2. Harkaran Singh Kang son of Tejinder Singh Kang, resident of Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainants

Versus

Beant Aluminum Fitting, Bilaspur Road, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Beant Singh son of Naib Singh.

 

               …..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President          

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

         

Present :      Sh. T.S.Kang, Adv. Cl. for the complainants.

                Opposite party Exparte.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                    Complainant, Satkar Finance Company, Kang Market, Khamanon through its Partner Harkaran Singh Kang son of Tejinder Singh Kang, resident of Ward No.5, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant hired the OP for the work of PVC Sheets fitting in the rest room/cabin of Partners of Satkar Finance Company and gave Rs.17,000/- to the OP for the same on 28.08.2016, who issued bill No.67.  Despite assurance given by the OP, the PVC sheets were not attached with the wall as well as with each other and there is space between the wall and sheet to sheet. The complainant many times called the OP to fix the PVC sheets in proper manner but it did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant, rather OP asked the complainant that there is no fault on his part and he will not repair or reaffix the PVC sheets. The OP, thus, has indulged in unfair trade practice and has provided deficient services to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on his part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to repair or reaffix the PVC sheets and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages.

3.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, who chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP was proceeded against exparte.

4.             In order to prove its case, the complainant tendered in evidence original bill Ex. C-1, photographs Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-8, affidavit of Harkaran Singh Ex. C-9, copy of partnership deed Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is established from photographs i.e Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-8 that the PVC sheets were not fixed/installed in a proper manner. He further stated that Harkaran Singh has deposed the same through his affidavit Ex.C-9. Learned counsel argued that deficiency in service is proved against the OP and complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

6.             After hearing the learned counsel for complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions alongwith oral submissions, we find force in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. The OP despite service has failed to appear and contest the case. As per our opinion the complainant has proved his case by placing on record sufficient material. It is evident from the photographs Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 that the OP was deficient while installing the PVC sheets. Further from perusal of record it is evident that the OP did not pay any heed to the several requests made by the complainant. We are of the opinion that OP has acted negligently while fixing the PVC sheets.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that OP has committed deficiency in service while fixing the PVC sheets. Hence, we direct the OP to repair or reaffix the PVC sheets. In case the same cannot be repaired or reaffixed, then to refund a sum of Rs.17,000/-(Rs. Seventeen Thousands). It has come to our notice that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as M/S Sikka Papers Ltd Versus National Insurance Company,III(2009)CPJ90 SC, wherein it has been held  that company/firms cannot claim damages for mental harassment as it is a natural person. In view of the aforesaid case law, complainant is not entitled for compensation but he is only entitled for litigation expenses. Thus, we further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation costs.

8.              Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                             

  Dated:14.07.2017

                                                                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                                                                                                                      President

 

 

              (Inder Jit)       

                       Member