Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 149
Instituted on : 10.04.2018
Decided on : 16.08.2023
Anand Singh Kadian S/o Sh.Kartar Singh R/o H.No. P-20, Panchwati Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak-124001
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Ganpati Wood Products, Village Tajakpur, P.O.-Pansara, Yamunanagar-135001, Mobile No. 09355536934(Sandeep CP)
- Shiv Plywood Traders, Sheela Bye-pass Chowk, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor Aman Arora, Mobile No. 9896062770.
…….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.S.Kadian, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Balram Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No. 2.
Opposite party no. 1 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he constructed a house no. P-20 Panchwati Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak in the year 2016 and purchased C.P.Plyboard Products Fevicol etc. items from the opposite party no. 2 vide bill No. 1459 dated 27.08.2016 and 1624 dated 12.06.2017 for constructions of almirah etc. Opposite party no. 2 written warranty upon bill that all products of C.P. is under warranty of 15 years of termite. The C.P. plyboard products were prepared by opposite party no. 1 and supplied to the opposite party no. 2 with the warranty of termite. It is further submitted that on 26th June 2017, after use of the C.P. products of C.P. ply and board, the termite started to eat the ply board of the almirah in the house of complainant. Thereafter the complainant made an oral complaint before the opposite party no. 2 regarding the termite. The employee of the opposite party no. 1 & 2 came at house of complainant and take some photographs of the almirah damaged by termite and handed over the alleged photographs to the opposite party no. 2. After that complainant contacted to Aman Arora, Proprietor of opposite party then he told that the photographs were sent to opposite party no.1 for compliance. The complainant approached many times to opposite party no. 2 for making the compensation for the alleged loss. On 20.03.2018, the opposite party no. 2 put an agreement on a stamp paper before the complainant and written on that stamp paper that “I have received full and final payment of Rs.30,000/- and settled the matter and the matter will not be taken to any court of law”. But the complainant refused the same because the loss was excessive than the said amount and the same was near about Rs.1,75,000/- including the loss was occurred in board and ply, layout cost, sunmica, fevicol and other articles used for preparing the almirah. As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1,68,617/- the amount already paid to opposite party no. 2 by the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum and also to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that it is almost impossible that termite started so quickly. So it is very much possible that the complainant has used some local material and not used the C.P. ply and boards in the said almirah, which was purchased by them vide bill no. 1459 dated 27.08.2016 & 1624 dated 12.06.2017. Neither any employee of the opposite party nor opposite party no. 1 went to the house of the complainant. The complainant never contacted the opposite party and nor any agreement or stamp paper was put before the complainant to settle the matter. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. Notice issued to opposite party no. 1 through registered post not received back. Statutory period of 30 days has elapsed. No further wait is justified. As such, opposite party no. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.07.2018 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.PW1/A & Ex. PW1/B documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the complainant also tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/B, document Ex.P13 in additional evidence and closed his additional evidence on 23.10.2019. However, ld. counsel for the complainant made a statement on dated 16.08.2023 that affidavit tendered in additional evidence Ex.PW1/B be read as PW1/B1 and document Ex.P13 be read as Ex.P13(1) as the documents Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P13 were already tendered. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and close his evidence on 03.06.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per bills Ex.P1 & Ex.P2, the complainant had purchased the product from the opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.168617/-. The respondent no.2 gave warranty of 15 years of termite regarding the products to the complainant. The perusal of the photographs placed on record as Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 itself shows that the Almirah and other products have been damaged due to the termite. To prove his complaint and damages, the complainant has also placed on record the expert report dated 12.10.2019 issued by KKS Timber Valley(Regd.) as Ex.P13(1). This report itself shows that all the three almirahs have been 100% damaged alongwith the ply and board due to termite and it is further submitted that if these almirahs have not been removed, then it can cause further damages to the door and windows of the house. On the other hand opposite party No.2 has been placed on record only his affidavit and no expert report has been placed on record by the opposite party no.2 to prove the fact that no such material was used by the complainant, which was purchased from the opposite party no.2 or no such loss has been caused to the complainant. We have also heard the CD placed on record as Ex.P12 which is a conversation of five different dates between the complainant and Pawan Kumar employee of opposite party No.2. Out of which, three conversations are relevant. As per this conversation Pawan Kumar had sent the photographs of damaged almirahs to the manufacturing company and every time he asked the complainant to talk to Mr. Aman proprietor of opposite party No.2. But the complainant replied that he made several attempts to talk to Mr. Aman but every time, his phone was picked up by the father or mother of Aman and he was not found on the address. This shows that Opposite party no.2 was playing some hide and seek with the complainant and deliberately avoided to attend the phone calls of complainant.. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 in not properly attending and helping the complainant for redressal of his grievances. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has admitted the fact that CP Products were manufactured by the respondent no.1. But, opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Commission despite service of notice through registered post and was proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite party No.1 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled against the opposite party No.1 regarding selling the defective product stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the opposite party No.1 also and opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per bills the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.168917/- on the purchase of product. Hence the complainant is entitled for the alleged amount beside the installation charges which we have assessed as Rs.30000/- i.e. Rs.198917/-(168917/- + Rs.30000/-) alongwith compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.198917/-(Rupees one lac ninety eight thousand nine hundred and seventeen only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.04.2018 till its realization and Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on his part. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
16.08.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender singh, Member
