Haryana

StateCommission

A/844/2015

BRIJ LAL AND CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARPAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KADIAN

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      844 of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.10.2015

Date of Decision :       20.07.2016

 

M/s Brij Lal and Company, Timber and Plywood Kailash Bhawan, HUDA Complex, Jimkhana Club Road, Rohtak through its Partner Rajesh Babbar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Harpal Singh s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Resident of Village Samar Gopalpur, District Rohtak at present, Resident of House No.971, Sector-3, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Ravi Kadian,  Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vikrant Hooda, Advocate proxy for Shri Ajay Dagar, Advocate for respondent.

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Brij Lal and Company-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 11^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Harpal Singh-complainant/respondent, was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of supply of inferior quality doors/windows while constructing complainant’s house. 

2.      The respondent-complainant was constructing his house. He hired the appellant to do the wood work, that is, fixing of doors, windows etcetera in March, 2010. The work was completed in September, 2010 for which the respondent paid an amount of Rs.4,01,000/- to the appellant.  The respondent noticed that some of the windows were broken and there were cracks in some of the doors/windows. The respondent approached the appellant to replace the defective doors/windows but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite party-appellant in its reply stated that the respondent had paid Rs.2,37,000/- only and he was yet to pay the balance amount of Rs.81,935/-. It was further stated that the respondent had only purchased the doors and windows from it and the same were got fixed by the respondent by hiring some other labour/carpenter. The respondent filed the instant complaint to avoid the balance payment. it was denied that 10 years guarantee was given to the complainant qua the windows/doors.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the appellant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent filed the complaint to avoid the balance payment and there was no defect in the doors/windows, as alleged.

6.      The submission made is not plausible. The photographs Exhibits C-4 to C-43 produced by the respondent in his evidence clearly establish that the doors/windows fixed by the appellant in respondent’s house were defective, that is, inferior quality of wood was used by the appellant in the doors/windows. The appellant-Opposite Party has not been able to deny the authenticity of the photographs Exhibits C-4 to C-43. The plea of the appellant that the respondent has not paid the balance amount, is not justifiable because if the payment was not fully made by the respondent, in that eventuality, the appellant could have initiated some action for the recovery of the same. So the plea of the appellant is no defence to supply defective material to the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned order does not require any interference.

7.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 20.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL