Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/484/2022

Rawat. Singh. Sangwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Paint House - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Singh

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/484/2022
Date of Institution	:	4/5/2022
Date of Decision	:	2/08/2024

 

Rawat. Singh. Sangwan, R/o House No. 1206, second floor Sector 34- C, Chandigarh

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Delhi Paint House, SCO No. 13, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh Through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Krishana Mahajan

2. Krishana Mahajan Proprietor/Authorized Signatory of Delhi Paint House, SCO No. 13, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Satinder Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs exparte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the OP No.1 is dealing in paint, wallpapers etc. in the name and style of Delhi Paint House and OP No.2 is  proprietor/authorized sigtnatory of OP No.1. In the first week of March 2022, the wife of complainant visited the showroom of OPNo.1 in order to purchase wall papers for their house. After visiting the show room number of wall papers of different quality and designs were shown by the OP. On being convinced the wife of the complainant purchased wall papers  of Asian company for her house. The OPs also convinced the wife of the complainant that they have been providing service of pasting and affixing wall paper and also promised to provide best quality material and skilled workers  for pasting and affixing  the wall papers and also informed that the representative of OPs will visit the house of complainant in order to take measurement. After few days, the representative  of the OPs namely Sanjeev Verma and one female came at the house of the complainant and took the measurement and after taking measurement they had given an estimate of Rs.1,03,410/-  which included the wallpers and cost of pasting/affixing the same on walls.  The copy of estimate is annexed as Annexure C-1.  On the assurances given by the Ops and their representative, the son of the complainant firstly transferred an amount of Rs.40,000/ on 5.3.2022  and further transferred an amount of Rs.24,350/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.  The copies payments receipts are annexed as Annexure C-2 to C-5.  In the last week of March 2022, the workers of the OPs started pasting work of the wall paper in the house of the complainant.  However,  immediately after pasting of the wall papers, the same started bloating  and at some places the wall papers were not pasted properly and at some places the same were found in torn condition.  The photos of defected and imperfect services provided by the OPs are annexed as Annexure C-6 to C-10.  Thereafter the complainant approached the Ops and complained about the said defect in the wall papers as well as pasting work and called OP No.2 who assured the complainant that he will look into the matter and in the month of April 2022, the representative  of OPs came to see the work and  wife of the complainant narrated about the imperfect and negligent service provided by the OPs and requested him to sort out the problem but with no result, rather he started abusing & misbehaving the complainant’s wife. In this manner the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  was properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 30.11.2022.

2. In order to prove his claims the complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant  and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  complainant that  the complainant had hired the services of OPs by purchasing wall papers for the walls of his house by paying an amount of Rs.94,350/-, out of the total amount of Rs.1,03,410/-as is also evident from Annexure C-1 the estimate and Annexure C-2 to C-5 the payment confirmation receipts and certain defects in the quality  of wall papers and imperfect pasting of the same were found and the said fact was brought to the notice of OPs but nothing has been done by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and  indulgence in unfair trade practice and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the OPs had given estimate of Rs.1,03,410/-  for wallpapers which included pasting work. Annexure C-2  to C-5  clearly indicate that the complainant had transferred amount of Rs.94,350/- to the OPs. Annexure C-6 to C-10 clearly indicate that at some places the wall papers started bloating whereas on some places the same are in torn condition and at some places the same have not been properly pasted as a result of which the defects are clearly visible, making further clear that in fact the OPs had not provided good quality wall papers to the complainant and also had not got the pasting work done properly, as a result of which defects of bloating and imperfection were seen on the walls and the walls of the house of complainant started giving shabby look. Thus the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

 

1. to pay ₹ Rs.94,350/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. till onwards.
2. to Lump-sum  amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainantas compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/08/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member