Haryana

Panchkula

CC/18/2015

AMANDEEP KAPIL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJEET SINGH & ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

JAGPAL SINGH.

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	18 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2015

                                                                                          

Amandeep Kapil son of Sh. S.K. Kapil, H. No.-B2 595, Lekhram Colony, Bitna Road, Near Parashuram Bhavan, Pinjore, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Balwan Singh C/o Jangra Furniture, Bitna Road, Near Shivam Washing Station, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Jangra Furniture, Bitna Road, Near Shivam Washing Station, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Proprietor Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Balwan Singh.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person alongwith Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate. 

Ops are already exparte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he availed the services of OP no. 1 who is having carpenter business in Pinjore. OP no.1 would do interior decoration as well as renovate the kitchen including material to be used for wood work etc. at the house of the complainant. OP no. 1 convinced the complainant that he is skilled in the wood work.  The complainant settled the entire job i.e. woodwork with material @ Rs. 350/- per sq. meter with the opposite party no. 1.  The complainant paid the advance amount of Rs. 12,000/- to OP no. 1 to start his job work and it was agreed between the parties that entire job would be completed within the period of 10 days and it was further agreed that opposite parties would use the material of best quality. OP no. 1 started the work in the kitchen of the complainant.  After starting the wood work, the opposite party no. 2 lacked his dedication towards the work and used to come after the gap of one or two days. After that OP no. 1 took 2 months period in finalizing the work, which caused inconvenience to the complaint for such a long period and the material used for the renovation of the Kitchen by the opposite party no. 2. After finalizing the work complainant demanded the bills of material used along with bills of service provided by OP no. 2.  Opposite Party no. 2 told the complainant that he is in dire need of money and he would give the bills on the next day. As per assurance given by the opposite party no. 2 the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 100000/-. On the next day, the complainant approached the OP no. 2 and demanded the bills  but the OP no. 2 refused to give the bills on one pretext or the other.  That after few days of finalization of work, complainant noticed that the work done by the opposite parties is not upto mark and not in accordance with the agreement between the parties   Due to the work done by the opposite parties, Windows of cupboard/cabinet could not be properly working, drawers once pulled outside failed to close again, colour/texture of sun-mica got faded, entire wood got puffed which is disrupting the opening and closing of the window pane of cupboard/cabinet.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to do the work again with good material or to return the amount paid by complainant but the opposite parties refused the same.  The complainant issued legal notice to the Ops but to no avail.  This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops through process server but the Ops did not appear after effecting service and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.05.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. After hearing the complainant and going through the record available on the case file, the complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he has got the woodwork done at his house from the Ops and paid an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- to the Ops but he has not placed on record any bill/receipt or agreement to prove that he has got the woodwork done from the Ops. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a “consumer” of the services of the opposite parties within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
6. Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dealing with definitions in clause (d) defines a ‘consumer’ as under:

“(d) ‘Consumer’ means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

     Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.”          (Emphasis added)

7. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED

17.07.2015                       ANITA KAPOOR                DHARAM PAL

                                        MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT