Haryana

Panchkula

CC/174/2021

SUMIT GULATI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DINESH GLASS HOUSE. - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN SAHRAWAT & SAPNA SAHRAWAT

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	174 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	09.03.2021
Date of Decision	:	22.11.2022

 

 

Sumit Gulati, Aged 40 years son of Sh. Satish Gulati resident of Flat No.701, GH 82, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                          .….Complainant

 

Versus

M/s Dinesh Glass House, through its Proprietor, Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #101, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula                                                    

                                                                                        .….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate, for complainant. 

                        Sh. P.S.Bedi, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant visited the shop of the OP in connection with the purchase of glasses to be fitted in wooden panel at his residence.  The worker of the OP showed the design of the glasses on computer, which was finalized by the complainant after few modifications in the presence of the OP and on the same day, the OP had given rough estimate of Rs.12,000/- of the total work; after that, the worker of the OP visited  the residence of the complainant for taking measurements and he(complainant) was advised  that a toughened glass of 5mm would be proper for installation in the wooden panel;  as such relying upon the advice given by the worker of the OP, order was given to OP to make 4 Nos. of Frosted Design Glass to be fitted at his residence by 14.12.2020; an amount of Rs.12,000/- as full and final payment was paid in cash by complainant whereas a tax invoice of only Rs.3,613/- was issued. The glasses were delivered on 18.12.2020, wherein it was found that the design was not the same as was finalized at the time of placing the order.  Further, the glasses were also found dirty and lacking frost and basic neatness with lots of scratches; on the same day, the matter was brought in to the notice of the OP.     It is alleged that while fixing 5 MM glass, the plywood of the showcase in which the glasses were to be fitted got damaged and it was informed by the labourer of the Op, that 8 MM was necessary and required for the proper fitting, whereas the worker of the OP while taking measurement advised for 5MM glass. Further, the labour of the OP was not professional and while fitting glasses, they inserted big iron nails, which had caused cracks at various places in the wooden panel. Thereafter, the OP was contacted by the complainant telephonically on various occasions(more than 38 times on his mobile phone) and the complainant even visited the work place of the Op several times, but the OP never paid any heed to genuine request of the complainant and always made false promises to resolve the issue. Due to the act and conduct of OP, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being frivolous and vexatious; bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary party; no locus standi and has not come with clean hands. It is stated that the complainant finalized the design of the glasses after seeing the same on computer. It is specifically denied that an estimate of Rs.12,000/- was given for the total work. It is submitted that the OP had charged a sum of Rs.12,283/- for the designing and a sum of Rs.3,613/- for the cost of the glasses; thus, an amount of Rs.3,896/- is still outstanding towards  the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant requested the OP that he does not want to pay GST on the purchase of the glasses; thus on the request of the complainant, the OP had issued the tax invoice of Rs.3,613/- for the carriage of goods from the shop to the complainant’s residence.  It is submitted that complainant after doing the thorough survey in the market had visited the OP’s shop for purchase of the glasses and only after satisfying himself with regard to the quality of the work of the OP, had placed the order for the purchase of the glass from him(OP). It is stated that the glasses were loaded for delivery in the vehicle when the complainant had checked and verified all the designs and glasses. It is further stated that the OP had supplied and delivered the glasses to the entire satisfaction of the complainant with regard to its quality and workmanship; so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 (colly) in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record available on the file including written submission filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the OP had provided the services to the complainant by way of selling the glasses to be fitted in the wooden panel at the residence of the complainant as also the designing, frosting & fittings thereof i.e. the glasses. The payment of an amount of Rs.12,000/- made by the complainant to OP is also not in dispute. The dispute in the present complaint is about the wrong designing and improper installation of the glasses in the wooden panel at the house of the complainant.                 

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has contended that the worker of the OP had wrongly advised the complainant qua installation/affixation of 5mm toughened glasses, in place of 8mm toughened glass, which was correct, proper and suitable size. It is contended that the glasses with approved design, as per Annexure C-3, were not delivered by the OP and that the frosted glasses were not installed as requested by the complainant. The learned counsel further contended that the wooden panel got damaged due to the improper installation of the glasses and that there were scratches also on the installed glasses. Relying upon the site inspection report dated 09.02.2022 given by Sub Divisional Engineer, Provl. Sub Division No.ll, PWD B & R Branch, Panchkula, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the OP to grant the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             The OP has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on the merits in its written statement. As per preliminary objections, it is stated that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party.

                This objection is rejected for want of clarification as to the necessary party in the case, which has not been impleaded in the present complaint. The OP has admittedly provided the services to the complainant, therefore, the objection carry no merits in it.

                The next objection is that complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. This objection is also rejected because the complainant has availed the service of OP in lieu consideration of Rs.12,000/-.

The next objection that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands is also rejected for want of clarification as to which relevant facts have been concealed by the complainant.

7.             On merits, the allegations leveled by the complainant qua the preparation of wrong design of glasses and the improper fittings and quality of glasses thereof have been denied. It is contended that the glasses were delivered to the complainant as per his selection, choice & to his entire satisfaction. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the glasses were loaded in the vehicle for delivery after the proper checking and verification of the design as well as quality of the glasses by the complainant and thus, there was no responsibility of the OP after the delivery of the glasses to him(the complainant). The learned counsel has raised strong objections to the correctness and genuineness of the findings given by Sub Divisional Engineer, Provl. Sub Division No.ll, PWD B & R Branch, Panchkula vide his site inspection report dated 09.02.2022 on the ground that there was no grievance of the complainant qua the mirror image of the glasses. It is contended that the findings qua scratches on the glasses has not been clarified by the said SDE i.e. local commissioner as to their kind and nature. Reiterating the averments made in the written statement as well as objection dated 25.02.2022 filed in response to the site inspection report dated 09.02.2022, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

8.             Though, the complainant has taken the plea of Commission of fraud by the OP while issuing the tax invoice of only Rs.3,613/- in place of Rs.12,000/- as the payment of Rs.12,000/- was made in cash but the  said  plea has neither been pressed during the course  of arguments nor any relief has been claimed on this count. Even otherwise, the main grievance of the complainant is qua the designing, frosting and fitting of the glasses at his residence. During the pendency of complaint, an application was submitted by the complainant on 25.10.2021 seeking the site inspection by local commissioner. Keeping in view the serious dispute between the parties qua the alleged controversy, the application was allowed vide order dated 06.01.2022 and the matter was referred to XEN, PWD, Panchkula for deputing any SDO subordinate to him to visit and inspect the site and give his report qua the issues raised by the complainant in para no.3 of his application dated 25.10.2021.  The issues raised by the complainant in para no.3 of the said application dated 25.10.2021 are reproduced as under:-

1. Change of the design of the mirror as the glasses fitted in the drawing room and the kitchen does not match as approved by the complainant.
2. The glass fitted in the drawing room lack basic neatness and also scratches are there on the glasses fitted by the labour of the opposite party and the same are irremovable.
3. That the glasses fitted are unfitted from all the borders of the wooden frame.
4. The glasses fitted have fingerprints, gum prints and other various marks all over the glasses.
5. Glasses are not frost rather glasses are acid wash, whereas frost design was approved by the complainant.
6. That the thickness of the glass in the kitchen area as advised by the advisor of the opposite party on his visit was incorrect and due to that the ply board has emerged out of the wooden panel.
7. That nails used for the fitting of the glasses in the wooden panel are rather long then the usual and due to which severe damage had been done to the wood work at several places.

                In response to said order dated 06.01.2022, the site inspection report was received from Sub Divisional Engineer, Provl. Sub Division No.ll, PWD B & R Branch, Panchkula vide memo no.292 dated 09.02.2022. The findings recorded by said SDE in his report, for the sake of clarity and convenience are reproduced as under:-

1. The design of glasses fitted in the drawing room and the kitchen are mirror image.

 

2. Scratches has been observed on the glass fitted in drawing room.

 

3. The glasses fitted in Kitchen & Dining area have finger marks, gum prints all over the glasses.

 

4. Glasses fitted are Acid wash.

 

5. There are damage on some places on the wooden panel due to nails used for fitting glasses.

 

9.                Before looking into the findings as given in the said site inspection report, it is necessary to deal with the objections raised by the OP qua the genuineness and correctness of the said site inspection report. The objections raised on behalf of the OP need not to be discussed again as the same has already been discussed in earlier para of this order. 

The objections raised by the OP are rejected having no merit as the report has been made by Sub Divisional Engineer, Provl. Sub Division No.ll, PWD B & R Branch, Panchkula as per actual site inspection in the presence of both the parties. There is no ambiguity in the site inspection report and further, no legal infirmities have been found therein.  We have no plausible justification to differ with the findings as shown in the said site inspection report. Therefore, the objections raised by OP qua the correctness and genuineness of the said site inspection report are rejected.

10.            Now, we advert to the said site inspection report, wherein it is found that the glasses fitted have been found as acid wash, whereas the OP undisputedly, was asked to install the frosted glasses. Further, the scratches have been found on the glasses as fitted in the drawing room. Furthermore, the wooden panel have also been found damaged on some places. Therefore, we have reached at the conclusion that OP was negligent and deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

11.            Coming to the relief, it is found that the expenses amounting to Rs.12,000/- were incurred by the complainant in the purchase and installation of the glasses etc. Therefore, he is entitled to the refund of the said amount along with interest. Apart from it, the complainant is also entitled to adequate compensation on account of damages to the wooden panel as he is likely to incur an additional expenses on account of repairs and painting of the damaged wooden panel work etc. The complainant is also entitled to adequate compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment etc.

12.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a.(SI) w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as repair charges which the complainant is likely to incur on account of repair and painting of damaged wooden panel etc.
3. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
4. The OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation charges.

 

13.            The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 22.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

          Member                         Member                               President

 

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

 

                                            Satpal                                     

                                          President