Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/97/2021

Sunil Mallan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Guru Nanak Furnitures - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Singh adv

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	97 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	09.02.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	06.10.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Mallan, Advocate, son of late Sh.Thakur Dass, Office Address at Booth No.14-B,  Sector 47-C, Chandigarh 160047 (UT)

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Guru Nanak Furnitures, Opposite Gurdwara Sahib Babe Ke, Chandigarh Road, Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh/Mohali 160059

2]  Baljit Singh (Owner), M/s Guru Nanak Furnitures, Opposite Gurdwara Sahib Babe Ke, Chandigarh Road, Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh/Mohali 160059

3]  Son (Name not known) of Baljit Singh (Partner/Production Incharge), M/s Guru Nanak Furnitures, Opposite Gurdwara Sahib Babe Ke, Chandigarh Road, Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh/Mohali 160059

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Balraj Singh, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Sunil Choudhary, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 25.05.2020, he agreed to purchase the office table (measuring 6”x3”x35” in length, width and height) from the OPs for an amount of Rs.22000/- and paid Rs.20000/- through e-transfer in the account of the OP No.2 on different dates May/June (on the special request of Mr.Baljit Singh being covid crises) and the OPs promised that the working table measuring 6ft x 3ft x 35inch, sheesham wood duly naturally polished with 90% black sold seasoned, medicated wood) was to be delivered on 01.07.2020 but the same was not delivered despite his repeated requests. On 25.07.2020, the OP No.2 sent a raw table picture from his whatapps, however, the same did not match with the drawing as of 25.05.2020.  On 25.08.2020, the OPs refused to deliver the article and to refund the received amount to the complainant.  Finally, the complainant served a legal notice dated 04.09.2020 upon the OPs, following by reminder dated 27.01.2021 but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to deposit   amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

2]       The OPs in their written version have stated that the complainant ordered for wooden office table for Rs.22000/- along with books rack for Rs.10,500/-, totaling Rs.32,500/- on 25.05.2020 and after bargaining the value was settled at Rs.29000/- and on 26.05.2020, the complainant paid Rs.10000/- as advance and Rs.5,000/- on 27.05.2020. The aforesaid articles were prepared and got ready within a week and the complainant was informed to get the same after making the remaining payment.  The complainant came on 18.06.2020 and took away both the articles by paying additional Rs.5000/- and assured to pay the remaining amount of Rs.9000/- within 5-7 days. However, the complainant in order to escape from the liability to pay Rs.9000/- has filed the present complaint. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of the OP made in the reply.       

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]       From the averments, it is made out that the case of the complainant is that he agreed to purchase the office table from the OPs of sheesham for an amount of Rs.22000/- and paid Rs.20000/- and the same was to be delivered on 01.07.2020 but it was not delivered, whereas the OPs contended that the complainant ordered for wooden office table for Rs.22000/- along with books rack for Rs.10,500/-, totaling Rs.32,500/- on 25.05.2020 and after bargaining, the value was settled at Rs.29000/- and on 26.05.2020, the complainant paid Rs.10000/- as advance and Rs.5,000/- on 27.05.2020 and thereafter, the complainant came on 18.06.2020 and took away both the articles by paying more Rs.5000/- and assured to pay the remaining amount of Rs.9000/- but did not pay the same and instead filed the present complaint.

 

7]       It is clear that the OP after receipt of the amount from the complainant, failed to deliver the agreed/promised furniture despite repeated request of the complainant.  The non-delivery of product despite receipt of consideration amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

 

8]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Party with direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant which includes compensation and litigation cost as well.

        This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.  

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.10.2023                                                                      Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER