IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Hearing: 23.02.2021
Date of Decision: 05.03.2021
First Appeal No.1068/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S ASIAN PAINTS
Home Solutions
6-A, Shanti Nagar, Santa Cruz (East)
-
M/S SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS
38/8, DLF Industrial Areas,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110008 ….Appellant
VERSUS
SMT. MANJU GARG
W/o Sh. Pawan Garg
MR. PAWAN GARG
S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
B-6/10, Mainwali Nagar
New Delhi-110087 ....Respondent
HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
Present: Sh. Samir Kulshreshtha, Counsel for the appellant
None for the respondent. Infact none appeared on their behalf since 19.01.2016
ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
- Aggrieved by the orders dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, III in C-1044/08 in the matter of Manju Garg and another versus M/s Spectrum Solutions and M/s Asian Paints, holding OPs as guilty and granting compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in rendering service to him by the respondents, and further awarding Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses M/s Asian Paints and M/s Spectrum Solutions have filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, assailing the said order alleging that the same has been passed without the scrutiny of facts and praying for setting aside the order granting compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in rendering services to him by the respondents.
- Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
- The appellant no. 1 ‘Asian Paints Home Solutions’ through one of its arms namely ‘M/s Spectrum Solutions’ appellant no. 2 has been undertaking painting contracts through its service providers. ‘Customer Delight and Customer Service’ have been its mottos. The appellants have a complete line of qualified and trained managers, employees and personnel committed to the execution of these services.
- The respondents had hired the services of the appellant for the purpose of painting their flat and polishing of the doors and windows for which written agreement was executed between the parties in July, 2008 requiring the work to be completed within 30 days. The details of the area to be painted and polished were indicated in the agreement. The total consideration involved was Rs. 1,17,542/- which amount was paid in advance by cheque. The work as per the agreement was to be performed by skilled team of painters to be headed exclusively by Mr. Dharamnath. However unskilled and untrained workers were put on the job. Besides the work was not completed within the stipulated period. Infact the workers being unskilled and negligent in handling the work had spoiled other items lying in the house. The quality of the polish used on the doors and frames were mis-matching. Local products were used instead of products of Asian Paints as agreed.
- In these circumstances the complaint was filed before the District Forum for the redressal of their grievances and for compensation for the damage done and secondly for the work as agreed to not having been done, which complaint having been allowed, this appeal has been filed on the grounds that the forum below has wrongly acted without jurisdiction. Secondly the District Forum also failed to record any findings in respect of terms and conditions settled between the parties. Thirdly, the District Forum exercised the jurisdiction not vested with them and took more than 6 years to decide the complaint of the respondent.
- Respondents were noticed but they not having not filed the reply despite abnormal time having been allowed, their right to file it stood closed.
- This matter was listed before this Commission for final hearing on 23.02.2021 when the counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments in support of their pleadings. None appeared for respondents. Infact they have not filed the reply. I have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
- Short question for adjudication in this appeal is whether there exists any infirmity in the orders passed by the District Forum.
- It was admitted that the work had to be completed within 30 days. Till 9th September, 2008 no room was complete and the complainant submitted that job was never completed to the satisfaction whereas according to the respondents no date was given for completion of the work. No documentary proof of completion of the work was filed. In its reply itself respondent admitted that even during the period when work was being done by the labour complainant was not satisfied with the material being used by them as well as the manner of execution of the work and he had been lodging the complaints regularly at the customer care centre of the respondents. It is a statement of fact after taking the advance the work was not carried out as per agreement and to his satisfaction and even his grievances were not being heard and addressed. It clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
- If that be the case the deficiency on the part of the appellant is writ large and in these circumstances the District Forum had awarded compensation. But the respondent before this Commission have neither appeared nor filed any reply. Infact for the last two years after receipt of Rs. 5000/- cost awarded in their favour while condoning the delay in filing the appeal they have not appeared. It appears that the respondents do not wish to contest the appeal and thus the appeal is accepted, with no orders on the subject.
- Ordered accordingly, leaving the parties to bear the cost.
- A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information. File be consigned to records.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER
PRONOUNCED ON
05.03.2021
sl
