Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/282

Shukal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Kichens - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinderjit Singh

22 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  282 dated  14.07.2022.                                            Date of decision: 22.05.2024. 

 

Shukal Gupta son of Sh. Ganpat Rai, resident of H. No.138, Moti Bagh Colony, Phullanwal, District Ludhiana. M. No.9872847000.

                                                Versus

Vipin Kumar, Proprietor Modern Kichens, Opp. Marry Land, Near Bank of Baroda, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rupinder Jeet Behniwal, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         None for the OPs. (Defense of OPs already                               struck of vide order dated 22.11.2022)

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the OPs is in the business of modular kitchens to whom the complainant ordered to make a modular kitchen in his newly constructed house for which the complainant paid Rs.2,40,000/- to the OP as per his demand.  When the complainant demanded the bill of amount and guarantee card from the OP then the OP gave temporary bill/kitchen contract to the complainant only with assurance to provide proper bill and guarantee card after completion of kitchen. But the OP did not provide the proper bill and guarantee card despite requests and reminders by the complainant. The complainant stated that the OP took order on 08.03.2022 which was to be completed up to 18.05.2022 but the OP has not completed the kitchen till date. Even the kitchen is not according to the drawing and the material used in the kitchen was not as was showed at the time of getting the order. The complainant further stated that the material is of low grade and all the channels, nuts and handles etc. are of law quality and are not working properly. The work is still incomplete despite requests made by the complainant and this act of the OP has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2022 to the OP but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to compete the pending work of kitchen of his house and to provide proper bill and guarantee card along with compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP but the OP failed to file written statement despite lapse of prescribed period of 45 days and as such, defense of the OP was struck of vide order dated 22.11.2022.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C2 is the bill dated 08.03.2022, Ex. C3 is the copy of bill dated 08.03.2022, Ex. C4 to Ex. C6 are the copies of statement of transactions, Ex. C7 is the copy of legal notice dated 23.06.2022, Ex. C8 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                In his affidavit Ex. CA, the complainant has reiterated the entire case as set forth in the complaint. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted on the file. The complainant has produced on record the bill dated 08.03.2022 Ex. C2 issued by the OP regarding kitchen contract with the complainant for a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and also receipt of Rs.20,000/- as advance by the OP. On Ex. C2 the date of order is mentioned as 08.03.2022 and date of delivery is mentioned as 18.05.2022. Further Ex. C3 is the copy of the bill vide which the OP received Rs.50,000/- on 13.04.2022, Rs.70,000/- on 29.04.2022 and in all the OP received Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant till 29.04.2022. The receipt of above said payments are alleged to have been written by the OP in his own handwriting. Further Ex. C4 to Ex. C6 are the copies of transactions statements vide which the complainant made payment of Rs.50,000/- on 07.06.2022 (Ex. C4), Rs.20,000/- on 18.05.2022 (Ex. C5) and Rs.30,000/- on 18.05.2022 (Ex. C6). In this manner, the complainant has made the payment of entire contract amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the OP. However, the complainant has claimed that the OP has failed to complete the contract regarding construction work of his kitchen despite receipt of entire contract amount and despite repeated requests and reminders including legal notice Ex. C7 dated 23.06.2022. As such, OP rendered deficient service to complainant. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘deficiency” as enshrined in Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

  1. any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.”

Moreover, it is a bounden duty of the parties to contract to perform their contractual obligation which in present case the OP who has failed to complete the construction work of kitchen of the complainant as per the contract Ex. C2 arrived at between the complainant and the OP which the OP had failed to perform his part of the contract despite receipt of entire contract amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. As such, in the given set of circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not completing the construction work of kitchen of the complainant as a result the complainant had to suffer. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate, if the OP is directed to complete the work in kitchen of the complainant within 30 days as per contract/bill Ex. C2, failing which to refund the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- so received by the OP from the complainant within 30 days from the date of expiry of 30 days for completion of construction work given vide this order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment.. The OP is further burdened with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to complete the work in kitchen of the complainant within 30 days as per contract/bill Ex. C2, failing which to refund the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- so received by the OP from the complainant within 30 days from the date of expiry of 30 days for completion of construction work given vide this order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The OP shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

7.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.05.2024.

Gobind Ram.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.