District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 86/2021.

 Date of Institution: 11.02.2021.

Date of Order: 30.01.2023.

M/s. Tegh Enterprises, Shop NO. 12, Peer Moti Nath Mandir Building, 1D Block, Market No.1, NIT, Faridabad – through its proprietor Shri Ajit Singh KHosa.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

M/s. Jagdamba Sales Corporation, Shop No.1 F – 42, B.P. Opposite Bus Stand, NIT, Faridabad through its proprietor.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Ravi Dutt Sharma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Amit Sharma, counsel for opposite party

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased 14 boxes of floor tiles containing 4 tiles in each box vide bill No.. 3283 dated 9.9.2020 for Rs.10,242/- including the freight/fare charges from the opposite party and the complainant had already paid the above said amount to the opposite party in cash.  At the time of selling the above said material, the opposite party assured the complainant that the material supplied by the accused was of a good/superior quality and there might be some manufacturing defect upto 3 to 5%.  The opposite party also assured that in case there was rejection of the material more than this percentage, in that even the opposite party should be responsible and would replace the same without charging any amount.  After opening the tiles box, the complainant was surprised to note that there was huge rejection in the boxes as there were 26 broken tiles out of total 56 tiles.  Thereafter the complainant had made a telephonic call and appraised opposite party about the above said rejection/broken tiles, but the opposite party neither given any satisfactory reply nor replaced the broken tiles, rather refused to replace the broken tiles and talked in a very rough and tough language, resultantly the complainant had to pay the double of the labour charges to the mason and even the entire material remained outside the shop on the road itself whole night. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 11.09.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                lift the rejected floor tiles supplied by the opposite party to the complainant and also to return the entire amount of Rs.4,030/- i.e. the cost of the 26 Nos. tiles as per their bill.

b)                pay financial loss of Rs.2000/- paid by the complainant to the mason .

c)                  pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs.2100 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the opposite party was a proprietorship firm and deals in all types of floor & wall tiles and Mr. Ajit Singh Khosa was the proprietor of the firm.  The opposite party supplied 14 boxes of floor tiles and 7 bages of adhesive vide invoice No. 3283 dated 09.09.2020 to the complainant.  It was also setlled that there might be breakage of 5% of total  tiles in the boxes.  The complainant thoroughly checked all the boxes and after being fully satisfied with the quality of the goods took away all the boxes in his own vehicle.  Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–  Jagdamba Sales Corporation with the prayer to: a)  lift the rejected floor tiles supplied by the opposite party to the complainant and also to return the entire amount of Rs.4,030/- i.e. the cost of the 26 Nos. tiles as per their bill. b) pay financial loss of Rs.2000/- paid by the complainant to the mason . c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. d)  pay Rs.2100 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex. CW1/A – affidavit of M/s. Tegh Entrprises, Shop NO.12, Peer Moti Nath Mandir Building, 1D Blcok, Market No.1, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.C1 – legal notice, Ex.C2 – postal receipt, Ex.C3 to C20, Ex.C-21 – invoice dated 09.09.2020

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal – Proprietor of M/s. Jagdamba Sales Corporation, Shop No.1, F42, B.P., Opposite Bus Stand, NIT, Faridabad.

6.                In this complaint,  the complainant has purchased 14 boxes of floor tiles containing 4 tiles in each box vide bill No. 3283 dated 9.9.2020 for Rs.10,242/-  from the opposite partyvid Ex. C-21.  After opening the tile boxes, the complainant was surprised to note that there was huge rejection in the boxes as there were 26 borken tiles out of 56 tiles. The complainant had made a telephonic call and appraised opposite party about the above said rejection/broken tiles, but the opposite party neither given any satisfactory reply nor replaced the broken tiles, rather refused to replace the broken tiles.

                   On the other hand, counsel for opposite party has submitted in his affidavit that the opposite party received legal notice dated 11.0-9.2020 from the complainant  and the opposite party sent reply dated 15.09.2020 to the complainant and suggested the complainant to withdrtaw the same but the complainant filed the false complaint only to extort oney from the opposite party.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that  no doubt that there was huge rejection in the boxes as there were 26 borken tiles out of 56 tiles.  Hence deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed.

8.                Opposite party is directed to:

a)                 pay Rs.4030/-  (cost of 26 Nos. tiles as per bill dated 9.09.2020) alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

b)               pay Rs.1100/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.

c)                pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  30.01.2023                                             (Amit Arora)

                                                                                            President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                            (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                            (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.