ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The case of the complainant is that he had placed an order of  one steel almirah and one shoe almirah with the OP , on the condition that the  will fulfil the aforesaid order on or before 25.3.2015.  The price and specifications agreed to between the parties are as under:

     It is alleged by the complainant that he finalized the order on 15.3.2015 and gave an advance of Rs.10,000/- to Sh. Parveen Sethi, A.R. of the OP , who in turn gave receipt of the same on his business card and also gave an assurance of the delivery of the order on 25.3.2015 in writing on the back of his business card.

     It is alleged by the complainant that OP failed to deliver the product on the date fixed and when the complainant tried to contact the OP to know the status of his ordered product, OP neither picked up the phone nor come forward with any proposal for extension of time for supply of the ordered product.

          It is further alleged by the complainant that when the OP failed to deliver the ordered product on the date fixed i.e. 25.3.2015, he sent a notice on 9.4.2015 to the OP and thereby called upon to cancel the order and to refund the advanced money to him.  But, nothing has been done by the OP to resolve the issue.

          The complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

        Complaint has been contested by the OP .  It has filed W.S. wherein he had denied any deficiency in service on its part.  Para No. 12 and 15 of the W.S. filed by the OP is relevant and is reproduced as under:

12.      That contents of Para (14) are correct only to the extent that the material was not supplied by March 25, 2015 however it is specifically denied that the complainant was not informed about the delay in delivery.  It was within his knowledge that the delay in delivery of agreed material by 25^th march, 2015 was on account of sickness of workmen of the Opposite party which was beyond control of the Opposite Party and was unforeseen.

15.      That regarding the contents of Para (17) and Para (18) of the complaint, it is specifically denied that order was cancelled on 25.3.2015.  It is submitted that on 27.3.2015, the Photographs of prepared materials were forwarded to the complainant on his “whatsapp” on account.  On his comments on March 31^st on April 2^nd, 2015.  The reply of the complainant dated 31.3.2015 clearly reflect that the complainant had not cancelled the supply order on 25.3.2015 itself.  It is submitted that despite having knowledge that the material is ready as per specification on April 2^nd 2015, yet no attempt was made on part of the complainant to visit the office of the Opposite Party and check the material as per specification and collect the material after making balance payment of Rs.14,845/- alongwith 12.5% VAT and Cartage.  So, he is barred from claiming that order for supply of the material as per his specification was cancelled on March 25^th 2015 or thereafter.

Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavits wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.

Despite several opportunities OP failed to place on record its evidence and as such it was ordered to be proceeded with exparte.

We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have perused the record.

Counsel for the complainant had contended that the OP had failed to deliver the ordered product in time i.e. On 25.3.2015, and as such complainant was compelled to cancel the contract.  It is further contended that the bare perusal of whatsup picture sent by the OP on 27.3.2015, 31.3.2015 and 2.4.2015 makes it clear that in one almirah only 20% work had been done and in other it was 0%.

It is further contended by the counsel for the complainant that due to the non supplying of the ordered product by the OP, complainant was compelled to purchase the same from another manufacturer for which he had paid Rs.36,430.75 i.e. Rs.8,480/- extra cost.    He has placed on record receipt dated 27.4.2015 in support of his contention.

The counsel for the complainant had contended that non supply of the ordered product in time, and not refunding the advance money by the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the complainant.  The bare perusal of the business card issued by the OP makes it clear that the product was agreed to be delivered  on 25.3.2015.

Since the OP failed to perform its part of contract, it is liable for the deficiency in services.  The Whatsup photograph of the almirah placed on record by the OP itself make it clear that even after the expiry of the date of delivery the ordered product was in complete.  Not only that OP had refused to refund the advance amount of s.10,000/- received by it for no rhyme or reason.

In view of the above discussion, and the documents placed on record we hold OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:-

1. Refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only)
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.8,480/- (Eight thousand Four Hundred Eighty Only) being the extra amount paid by him.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five  Thousand only) on account of mental agony and pain suffered by him which will also include cost of litigatigation.      

     The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

      Announced in open sitting of the Forum on ___________