Haryana

Sonipat

322/2013

DR. J.B. BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER CUM DIRECTOR ARROW LIFE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SHARMA

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.322 of 2013

                                    Instituted on:01.08.2013

                                    Date of order:28.10.2015

 

Dr JB Bansal Bansal Nursing Home, Sector 14, Sonepat.

 

      …….Complainant

 

                        VERSUS

 

The Director/Manager, Arrow Lifts Pvt. Ltd., B-9 Vardhman City-2, Asaf Ali road, Delhi now at

512, Ist Floor, Gali no.4, Sahjada Bagh infront of Inder Lok Metro Station Delhi.

     ……..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Adv.for complainant.

           Respondent ex-parte.

 

BEFORE-     Nagender Singh, President.

            Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

            D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his wife was suffering from severe pain in her knees and she was not in a position to go up stairs of the house.  So, the complainant decided to get installed a lift in his house and the complainant contacted the respondent, who offered to install the lift for Rs.8 lacs and also told that the complainant will have to pay an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- in advance and the remaining amount will be paid after completion of job.  An agreement was arrived at between the complainant and respondent on 15.10.2011 and after completing all the formalities, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- to the respondent through cheque.  The respondent got purchased the required material and put the same in one room, but after this also, the respondent did not start the work for installation of domestic lift despite repeated requests personally, telephonically as well as through e-mail.  The complainant thus, issued a legal notice to the respondent on 14.12.2012 and the respondent sent an evasive reply to the complainant.  Finding no way out, the complainant had to get operated the knees of his wife by spending an amount of Rs.5 lacs. The respondent also shifted their office and on coming to know the new address of the respondent, the complainant again approached and requested the respondent to install the domestic lift but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent was served through publication published in Jagat Kranti dated 16.09.2015.  But despite publication when none has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2015.

3.       We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and has also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- to the respondent through cheque.  The respondent got purchased the required material and put the same in one room, but after this also, the respondent did not start the work for installation of domestic lift despite repeated requests personally, telephonically as well as through e-mail.  The complainant thus, issued a legal notice to the respondent on 14.12.2012 and the respondent sent an evasive reply to the complainant.  finding no way out, the complainant had to get operated the knees of his wife by spending an amount of Rs.5 lacs. The respondent also shifted their office and on coming to know the new address of the respondent, the complainant again approached and requested the respondent to install the domestic lift but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         We have perused the document Ex.C8 and this document is written by the respondent to the complainant and in this document the respondent has mentioned that Our Technicians will reach your site to complete the balance work not later-than 10^th February, 2013 as all the materials had already delivered at the site.

         So, it appears that there is admission on the part of the respondent that the materials is lying at the site.  But in our view, since the respondent has failed to install the domestic lift at the site of the complainant inspite of the fact that the respondent has received Rs.7,20,000/- from the complainant, that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is entitled to get refund of his deposited amount from the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.seven lacs twenty thousand) alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The respondent are further directed to lift their material from the site of the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte.  The respondent is directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of one month, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the complainant free of costs and also be sent to the respondent for information and strict compliance of the order.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 28.10.2015