Haryana

Panchkula

CC/262/2014

KARAM SINGH BANYAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINTU DHIMAN. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                    

                                                                                   

Consumer Complaint No	:	262 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	12.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	19.02.2015

                                                                                                                 

Karam Singh Banyal, aged 62 years, S/o Sh.Prithvi Raj, R/o House No.11-A, Railway Colony, Tipra, P.O., & Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

Mintu Dhiman S/o Late Sh.Suchha Ram Dhiman, R/o VPO Barotiwala, District Solan (HP).

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

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

 

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                                    Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Complainant in person. 

Op already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Op with the averments that the Op is a carpenter and deals in the manufacturing and supply of wooden windows, doors & furniture on contact and order basis. Earlier the father of the Op was dealt with the said business and in the year 1995-96, the father of the Op had installed wooden doors & windows of “Tunni Tree” in the house of the complainant on the ground floor. The complainant was very satisfied with the work of the father of Op so he contacted the Op for installation of wooden work at first floor of his house as the father of the Op had expired. The complainant also disclosed the Op that he wanted wooden work of only “Tunni wood” as earlier also done by his father. The Op assured the complainant that he would also complete the wooden work of the complainant better than his father with Tunni Wood as used in the ground floor. On the assurance of the Op, the complainant agreed to get the wood work done from the Op at his house on first floor. In the first week of May, 2013, the Op visited the house of the complainant and requested to make some advance payment for purchase of “Tunni wood” for preparation of window & doors. The complainant made the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the Op and the Op assured that he would complete the wooden work till 15.06.2013. On 23.05.2013, the Op again demanded Rs.10,000/- (Annexure C-1) as advance and the complainant paid the same to the Op. The complainant time to time asked the Op for the wooden work and the OP assured that he would prepare the wooden work of “Tunni Wood” till 15.07.2013 but the Op failed to deliver the windows and doors of “Tunni wood” till 15.07.2013. The complainant again contacted the Op who again assured that he would soon deliver the windows and doors of “Tunni wood” at the residence of the complainant. On 25.07.2013, the Op visited the house of the complainant and put the windows & doors at the first floor of his house. In the morning, the complainant was shocked to see that the windows & doors prepared by the Op were of Marinddi Holak and other quality i.e. inferior quality of wood instead of “Tunni Wood” as ordered by the complainant. On 26.07.2013, the complainant called the Op at his residence and disclosed that the wood used by the Op was not of “Tunni” and was of inferior quality. The complainant also refused to install the said wooden doors and windows at his residence. The Op also agreed to take back the wooden doors & windows and to return the amount of the complainant till 25.08.2013 in the presence of the neighbours and further assured that if he failed to make the payment, he would pay the interest thereon (Annexure C-2). The Op further requested the complainant to pay Rs.2000/- on account of fare and assured to return that amount also on or before 25.08.2013. The complainant visited the Op for his payment of Rs.52,000/- alongwith his neighbor-Sh.Bhupinder Singh & relative of Op and the Op agreed to return the amount till 15.10.2013 as he was suffering some financial crises. After that the complainant visited many times to Op for his payment but the Op failed to return the amount of the complainant. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op, it is deemed to be served. The Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.01.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Ex.C-A and C-B alongwith documents Ex.C-1 & C-2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record.
5. It is evident that the complainant contacted the Op for installation of wooden work at first floor of his house of only “Tunni wood”. The Op assured the complainant that he would also complete the wood work of the complainant with Tunni Wood. In the first week of May, 2013, the Op requested the complainant to make some advance payment for purchase of “Tunni wood” for preparation of window & doors. The complainant made the payment of Rs.40,000/- (Annexure C-1) to the Op and the Op assured that he would complete the wooden work till 15.06.2013. On 23.05.2013, the Op again demanded Rs.10,000/- (Annexure C-1) as advance and the complainant paid the same to the Op. The complainant time to time asked the Op for the wooden work and the OP assured that he would prepare the wooden work of “Tunni Wood” till 15.07.2013 but the Op has failed to deliver the windows & doors of “Tunni wood” till 15.07.2013. On 25.07.2013, the Op delivered the windows & doors at the first floor of the house of the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see that the windows & doors prepared by the Op were of Marinddi Holak and other quality i.e. inferior quality of wood instead of “Tunni Wood” as ordered by the complainant. On 26.07.2013, the complainant called the Op at his residence and disclosed that the wood used by the Op was not of “Tunni” and was of inferior quality. The complainant also refused to install the said wooden doors and windows at his residence. The Op also agreed to take back the wooden doors & windows and to return the amount of the complainant till 25.08.2013 in the presence of the neighbours and further assured that if he failed to make the payment, he would pay the interest thereon (Annexure C-2). The Op further requested the complainant to pay Rs.2000/- on account of fare and assured to return that amount also on or before 25.08.2013 but in vain. The complainant visited the Op for his payment of Rs.52,000/- alongwith his neighbor-Sh.Bhupinder Singh & relative of Op and the Op agreed to return the amount till 15.10.2013 as he was suffering some financial crises. After that, the complainant visited many times to Op for his payment but the Op failed to return the amount of the complainant. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavits (Annexure C-A and C-B).
6. Moreover, the Op did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against him. The non-appearance of the Op despite notice show that he has nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Op is directed as under:-

(i)        To refund the amount of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.12.2014.

(ii)       To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

                 Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  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

19.02.2015          ANIL SHARMA  ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                            MEMBER              MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                                     

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT