Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 170.
Instituted on : 17.03.2011.
Decided on : 16.08.2016.
Jaipal Sigroha Advocate s/o Sh. Jage Ram R/o H.No.1395, Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Colston Bath & SPA Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office situated at 1-20A Mahindra Park Opp. Azadpur Fruit Mandi, Delhi-110033(India) through its Proprietor/Managing Director.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.P.Dhankhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that an employee of the opposite party contacted the complainant and tell the complainant about the benefits of LGA-111 Steam Room and being impressed with him, the complainant agreed to get installed Lga-111 Steam Room in his newly constructed house at Rohtak. It is averred that complainant pay an amount of Rs.50000/- to the official of opposite party on 17.07.2010 in the shape of booking amount vide receipt No.4043 dated 17.07.2010 and he was assured to get installed the same on or before 17.09.2010. It is averred that after receiving booking amount and despite various calls on the toll free number of opposite party and despite four personal visits by the complainant in the office of opposite party, opposite party did not pay any heed towards the installation of Lga-111 steam room so far. It is averred that opposite party failed to install the alleged Lga-111 Steam Room as promised by him. It is averred that complainant also served a legal notice dated 22.12.2010 to the opposite party but the opposite party refused to pay any heed towards the genuine request of the complainant. It is averred that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.50000/- to the opposite party at Rohtak and the entire cause of action has also accrued at Rohtak. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and as such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.50000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that all transaction between complainant and respondent has taken place at Delhi. Complainant failed to pay the balance amount for the item/goods booked by him at Delhi so, this order could not be complied with. It is averred that employee of the opposite party never visited at the house of complainant at Rohtak, rather it is the complainant who visited at the office of answering opposite party at Delhi and enquired about the product. It is averred that it is the policy of opposite party company to receive full and final amount before delivery of product to consumer, so question of remaining amount of Rs.80000/- after installation does not arise. It is averred that the complainant was requested to deposit the balance amount of Rs.80000/- for enabling the opposite party to install product in the complainant’s house, but it was complainant who failed to give any satisfactory reply and did not turn up to make the payment of balance amount. It is averred that notice dated 22.12.2010 was duly replied by the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present complaint it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.C4, complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.50000/- as advance money with the opposite party for installation of steam room having model no.III SR. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the opposite party failed to install the alleged steam room within the prescribed period as promised by him and also did not refund the booking amount despite his repeated requests. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that all transaction between complainant and respondent has taken place at Delhi. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further contended that complainant failed to pay the balance amount for the item/goods booked by him at Delhi so, this order could not complied with.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the instrument was to be installed at the address of the complainant at Rohtak and all the correspondence i.e. reminder Ex.R1 and reply to the legal notice Ex.R2 was also sent to the complainant at his address at Rohtak. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2008(2)CLT 36 titled as Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors. whereby Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that: “The order of confirmation stipulated the erection of the machine would be done by the seller/dealer at the site to be provided by the complainant which is at Bilaspur- Authorized Engineer of the OP No.1 visited for the purpose of installation of the machinery-Since the cause of action arose at Bilaspur, the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint” and as per 2008(2)CLT 275 titled as Shree Ram Sulz Fab(P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jupiter Enterprises, Hon’ble Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur has held that: “the machine has been installed at Bhilwara in Rajasthan, the place where the contract was to be performed and where some defects and problems were found in machine in question-The State Commission Rajasthan has the jurisdiction to try the complaint as the cause of action arose at the place where the contract came to be performed”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that in the present case also the machinery was to be installed at the house of the complainant at Rohtak. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Regarding the other plea taken by the opposite party that the booking amount is not refundable, opposite party has not placed on record any contract made between the parties or any other document to prove the same. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as the opposite party is liable to refund the booking amount.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the opposite party shall refund the booking amount of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.03.2011 till it realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.08.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
