Haryana

Kurukshetra

279/2016

Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bindu - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Singh

25 Feb 2021

ORDER

   BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION.KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.279/16.

Date of instt.: 06.10.2016 

                                                                     Date of Decision: 25.02.2021.

 

Ram Singh son of Chhaju Ram, resident of village Shanti Nagar, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Shri Bindu;
2. Shri Mandeep son of Bindu, both proprietor of Bindu Ara Machine and Wood, Shop No.24/2, Industrial Area, Sector-2, Kurukshetra.

               

        ..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:             Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                             Ms. Neelam, Member.

Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:             Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

     Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                       This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ram Singh against Bindu and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is owner of a plot No.918/8, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra and he wanted to make construction over the said plot. The complainant was under the requirement of wooden door and windows frame etc. for the said construction as per sanctioned site plan of HUDA Department. He contacted to OPs to purchase the door and windows etc. from their shop and submitted door and window frame. As per agreement between the complainant and OPs, the OPs would have given the Malaysia saal shall to the complainant @ Rs.212/- per feet in length including all other charges and labour expenses. As per measurement, the complainant would have to pay the total amount of Rs.77,651/- to the OPs in which the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- as cash in advance and remaining amount would have to pay at the time of delivery of the articles. On 6.8.2015 the complainant received all doors and windows under the impression and faith and as such, he paid remaining amount of Rs.57,651/- to the Ops on the same day. The Ops told the complainant that if he will get bill of full payment, then the Govt. will charge VAT on full amount, so the complainant was persuaded by the OPs to get only bill of Rs.36,630/- and the said bill was issued on dated 6.8.2015. He affixed the same at the time of construction of his house. Some known persons of complainant who are having knowledge of verity and quality told that the wood used in making the windows and doors is not Malaysia sall and same is very cheep in price and such type of wood can be purchased in the market at the rate of Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per feet. On this, the complainant engaged expert who had submitted their report that the wood is not Malaysia saal and rate of such type of wood is Rs.100/- per feet in the market. After getting the report, the complainant got served a legal notice through his counsel on dated 4.7.2016 to the OPs to compensate him, but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; that the OP No.1 had no concern with the said wood shop and the OP No.1 has been falsely implicated by the complainant in order to harass and blackmail; that the proprietor is always one person and there can never be two proprietors of a firm; that the complainant had illegally shown the Ops as proprietor of Bindu Ara Machine and wood shop, whereas, the complainant is very well aware that there cannot be two proprietors; that the complainant wanted to make construction over plot No.1918/8 Urban Estate, Kurukshetra and he contacted OP No.2 for purchase of wood; that no agreement regarding the supply of Malaysia Saal @ Rs.212/- per feet was ever executed as alleged; it is denied that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.57,651/- to the Ops on 6.8.2015; the complainant had purchased 53.01 CFT imported wood from the OP No.2 @ Rs.691/- per CFT and had paid a sum of Rs.38,554/- to OP No.2 including taxes and the OP No.2 had issued the bill for the said amount; that the complainant had not raised any objection at the time of purchase or at the time of fitting of the said wood and if there was any defect, the carpenter who had made the doors, should have raised the objections. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that as per agreement between the complainant and Ops, the Ops were to give the Malaysia saal @ Rs.212/- per feet in length. It is to be seen that no such agreement has been proved on file by the complainant.  It is further contended that as per measurement, the complainant had to pay the total amount of Rs.77,651/- out of which the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- in cash in advance and remaining amount of Rs.57,651/- was to be paid.  It is further contended that the only bill of Rs.36,630/- has been given by the Ops to the complainant after making the windows and doors.  It is also contended that the rate of wood was fixed as Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per feet.  However, payment of Rs.20,000/- was made by the complainant to the Ops on 06.08.2015.  It is further argued that the complainant engaged expert who had submitted report that the wood is not Malasia saal.  It is to be seen that there is no expert report on the file to prove the above-said matter.  It is also to be seen that the complainant has proved on file the cash memo showing the payment of Rs.36,630/- made on 06.08.2015.  The said amount has also been shown by the Ops vide cash memo, Ex.R1.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the contentions made in the  written statement has argued that the OP No.1 had no concern with the said wood shop and the OP No.1 has been falsely implicated by the complainant in order to harass and blackmail that the proprietor is always one person and there can never be two proprietors of a firm and that the complainant had illegally shown the Ops as proprietor of Bindu Ara Machine and wood shop, whereas, the complainant is very well aware that there cannot be two proprietors. It is further argued  that the complainant wanted to make construction over plot No.1918/8 Urban Estate, Kurukshetra and he contacted OP No.2 for purchase of wood. It is argued that  that no agreement regarding the supply of Malaysia Saal @ Rs.212/- per feet was ever executed as alleged and  that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.57,651/- to the Ops on 6.8.2015. It is argued that the complainant had purchased 53.01 CFT imported wood from the OP No.2 @ Rs.691/- per CFT and had paid a sum of Rs.38,554/- to OP No.2 including taxes and the OP No.2 had issued the bill for the said amount It is also argued  that the complainant had not raised any objection at the time of purchase or at the time of fitting of the said wood and if there was any defect, the carpenter who had made the doors, should have raised the objections. The quality of the woods in question has not been got checked from the expert and there is no expert report on the file. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that  Bindu OP No.1 has been wrongly impleaded as OP in this case because in a firm  there can only be one proprietor and as such  no case is made out against OP No.1. Secondly, the  contention of the learned counsel for the OP that there is no expert report regarding quality of the wood in question is devoid of any merit because as the OP in its reply has admitted that the complainant never supplied  the Malaysia Saal. But from the perusal of kachha bill Ex.C-3 it is clear that the complainant paid for Malaysia saal and as  per kachha bill the total amount was paid by the complainant  to the tune of Rs.77651/- . He had paid the sum of Rs.20,000/- on 6.08.2015 and the OP issued the bill Ex.C-2 for Rs.38554/- which was also paid by the complainant. The OP issued the bill for less amount than the actual amount paid by the complainant just to save taxes. Firstly, the OP supplied the sub standard woods instead of Malaysia saal and secondly, the OP issued the bill for less amount just to save the taxes, therefore, the OP committed unfair trade practice and  deficiency in services. The contention of the OP that carpenter who installed the doors and windows has not been  examined to disclose about the quality of the woods is also devoid of any force because, as per admission in the reply, the OP has not supplied the woods of Malaysia saal  and has supplied the sub standard woods, therefore, examination of the carpenter is not necessary in this case. However, as per Ex.C-2 (though wrongly marked) the woods were not Malaysia saal , rather it was a sub standard wood and executant of Ex.C-2 Mahavir is having long experience in the matter. Said Mahavir Singh has also stated that the OP has charged very excess amount in the cost of the woods in question. The cases before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are tried in summary manner and no elaborate evidence is required for the disposal of the cases. Further, the complainant has placed on record original bill Ex.C-2 and Kachha bill Ex.C-3 on record during course of arguments.  . Thus, from the above discussion, it is proved that the OP has committed unfair trade practice in issuing bill for less amount than the actually paid by the complainant and deficiency in services on the part of the OP for supplying woods of sub standard than the Malaysia saal, deficiency in services on the part of the OP is also made out. The OP No.1  is liable to be dealt with heavy penalty for the act so done by them.

 

9.             As a result of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice committed by the OP No.2 and for deficiency in services  and Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.2 is     further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of 45 days from the   date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.

Dt.:25.02.2021                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                        President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.