The complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a body corporate incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 named and styled as Bengal Rowing Club and for installation of one lift by King Fisher Elevator Industires Pvt Ltd. complainant had approached several lift manufacturers and ultimately offer of the op no.1 was found to be most competitive and so the offer of the op no.1 dated 08.06.2010 was accepted and pursuant to terms and conditions of the said offer dated 08.06.2010 an order was placed by the complainant to the op no.1 for one Hydraulic 8 passenger lift to be installed at a designated place in the Club for a price of Rs.4.7 lacs and incidental cost of Rs.0.75 lac towards MS structure and interior design necessary to install the lift and it may be pointed out that at the time of making the offer it was represented by the op no.1 that no permission is necessary from any authority to install a G+1 hydraulic lift. But subsequently it was found that this submission of op no.1 was false because license is mandatory for installation and operation of lift in any premises. But fact remains that the op no.1 could not satisfactorily install the lift and found that after installation of the said lift by op no.1 several defects were found and practically the lift could not operate properly as per terms and work was not done as per specification as given regarding the lift’s functioning and other matter and for which the defective lift could not be operated. Thereafter, the matter was reported to op no.1 on several occasions but the op no.1 gave some evasive reply and subsequently on 15.05.2011 op no.1 introduced the op no.2 as one of its associates and representative who shall have to remove defects pointed out by the club would be satisfactorily removed and the lift would be made operative by the op no.2. But in the mean time op no.1 already received Rs.4,40,000/- for installing the lift and subsequently op nos. 1 & 2 in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant could not make the lift operative to the satisfaction of the complainant and in this regard an e-mail was sent to the op no.1 on 05.08.201. Thereafter, on 14.08.2011 complainant further wrote a letter to the op nos.1 & 2 expressing dissatisfaction regarding the work of installation of the lift and practically they failed to make the lift for operation and no step was taken by the ops in spite of the ops letter dated 13.10.2011 to the effect that the lift was fully fit for operation and demanded payment of further Rs.1 lac and due to the said deficiency of service and negligent manner on the part of op no.1 and also adopting such unfair trade practices this complaint is filed by this complainant Club and moreover the ops did not act and subsequently the complainant engaged one reputed KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. to assess the correct position of the lift and said company on proper inspection opined that the lift was not operational and it would be clear from the reports issued by KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. and in the circumstances complainant has prayed for directing the ops to refund Rs.7,40,000/-being the cost of defective and non-serviceable lift of which Rs.4,40,000/- by op no.1 and Rs.3,00,000/- by op no.2 and for compensation. Practically in this case after filing of the complaint by the complainant notices were served upon both the parties and ultimately op no.1 on receipt of the same did not appear and op no.2 did not claim the notice and practically refused it for which both the notices as treated were duly served but they had not taken any step in this case for which the case was heard exparte. In the above situation relying upon the document as filed by the complainant and also the version of the complaint we shall have to decide the present dispute or the claim of the complainant. Decision with reasons On meticulous study of the complaint and also relying upon the document as filed by the complainant it is found that King Fisher Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. the op no.1 offered quotations for installation of the lift as per requirement of the complainant Bengal Rowing Club and thereafter work order was also issued by the complainant in favour of the op no.1 for installation of lift and after that complainant started the work of installation of lift and lift was installed but subsequently it was found that the lift was not operative for several defects. When the matter was reported to the op no.1 by the complainant and thereafter op no.1 again inspected but practically there are certain defects for which op no.1 requested the complainant that the defect matter shall be taken up by the op no.2 on his behalf as its representative and accordingly op no.2 took up the matter but ultimately the op no.2 also left the job which is evident from the document filed by the complainant which are marked as Annexure-A to J and from Annexure – J it is clear that King Fisher Elevator Industires Pvt Ltd. and Frankson Elevator & Escalator Industries received cheques being No.325655 for Rs.1,38,600/- & 33314 for Rs.2,97,000/- which were cleared on 10.06.2010 and 29.06.2010 and similarly Frankson Elevator & Escalator Industries op no.2 received three cheques from the complainant vide cheque No.433937, 442623 & 453053 of Rs.99,000/- each and the said cheques were clears on 17.05.201, 26.05.2011 & 28.06.2011 and it is the report of the Axis Bank who clears those cheques against A/C No. 255010200000736 of the complainant’s A/C. Considering the above fact, it is clear that complainant already paid Rs.2,97,000/- to the op no.2 and Rs.4,35,000/- to the op no.1. But it is proved that as yet license for operation of the said lift has not been handed over by the ops. So, question of operation of lift does not arise when license has not been delivered in favour of the complainant. The another factor is that in the mean time, the complainant deputed one renowned company KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. who examined and inspected the lift with his expert and they have submitted that the technology used in the aforesaid lift do not comply the IS 14671:1999- Code of practice for installation and maintenance of hydraulic lifts and BS 5655 (Part-2):1998/EN81(Part-2):1998 – Safety rules of construction and installation of Hydraulic lifts and seems to be risky for users due to faulty technology and by passed safety features along with observation that they are ten types of defects. So, considering that report of KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. a well known company, it is clear that the lift which was installed by the op nos. 1 & 2 is defective and practically faulty technology was used bypassing safety features. So, it is proved that the lift has not yet been completed for operation though complainant had already paid huge amount to the ops which has been already noted in the body of judgement. But peculiar factor is that two elevator companies even after taking huge amount i.e. the ops did not complete the lift and the said lift is not yet completed by the ops and for which no doubt the complainant really has been suffering much and also mental agony and pain because their members are unable to use the lift though huge amount of more than Rs.7,35,600/- had been paid to ops but ops are silent and it is the conduct of the elevator companies and they cheated the complainant, though they got huge amount but did not give service properly and the service was rendered the negligent manner and deficient in manner and the lift in question is defective and unserviceable. No doubt complainant’s allegation has been proved by expert opinion because the experts is well known of KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Though the ops got chance to defend the case when they received the summons but they did not take any such step to complete the work by handing over the license of the said cheque for operation by the complainant and then in addition ops are in different and they are not willing to observe their duties even after getting such amount from the complainant. Then it is proved that ops over acted illegally and they have adopted unfair trade practice and it is proved that they are in habit to earn money by supplying defective lifts and without giving proper service to the person who has accepted the offer of the ops for installation of the lift. In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant has already proved beyond any manner of doubt the unfair trade practice of the ops in all respect when they supplied defective lift and also for not supplying the said lift for operation by the present complainant and for not supplying the license also and for which the complainant’s case is beyond any manner proved against the ops and for which the ops are liable to pay compensation and also complainant is entitled to other relief as prayed for. In the result, the complaint succeeds exparte. Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the ops with cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the ops equally @ Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant. Ops are directed to remove the lift immediately at their own cost and to pay Rs. 7,40,000/-, the amount which has been paid by the complainant and out of that amount op no.1 shall have to pay Rs. 4,40,000/- and op no.2 shall have to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the ops jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order for adopting unfair trade practice and both the ops shall have to pay separately the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and the said amount shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund within one month from the date of this order. Ops are directed to comply this order very strictly within one month from the date of this order failing which for disobeyance of the Forum’s order each op shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected same shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Even for repeated disobeyance of the Forum’s order the penal action shall be taken against them for violation and disobeyance of the Forum’s order and even warrant of arrest shall be issued for implementation of this Forum’s order.
| | [HON'ABLE MR. A. K. CHANDA] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. B. MUKHOPADHYAY] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. SANGITA PAL] MEMBER | | 
