Delhi

North East

CC/128/2014

Om Prakash Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mehar Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.128/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Om Prakash Wadhwa B-18 Mansarover Park, G.T. Road Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.	M/s Mehar Enterprises SF-28, Cross River Mall, Near Karkardooma Court, Delhi-110092		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		11.04.2014
			DATE OF DECISION      :		27.02.2017

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Order

 

1. As per complaint, complainant placed an order to the OP for installation of 24 doors in his newly constructed house against payment of Rs. 2,71,650/- being cost of doors including labour charges, for installation thereof. At the time of booking, on 2.9.2012, complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- to the OP vide cheque No. 317966. Thereafter, on delivery of doors and starting of installation of the doors amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- respectively were paid by complainant.  Quality of doors is not disputed but regarding installation of doors, there are various complaints and the same is not as per quality displayed. Most of the doors started limping and their frames have lost their shape. In toilet-cum-bathroom, door’s right hand portion, frame has bended so much that door is creating hindrance while closing. Door is tilted and limped due to very poor and loose connection with its bed/plinth (Pataam), the door revolves on. A thin layer of light coming out at the top, left and the right portion of the door, highlights its tilt. Apart from this, the right side bottom of the doors is brushing the floor. Another door is titled and lean when closed, showing ray of light at right hand top of the door. Another door has bended at outdoor in the middle leaving a thin gap between door and the frame. The reason of limping the doors is that very thin and slim hinges have been fixed with very thin screws which are not able to bear the load of the doors. In most of the cases the screws have been tightened close to end of the pataam leaving no margin of its grip. And in certain cases it has torn the edge of the pattam. Substantial margin has been left in doors fittings in pattam due to which edge of pattam has torned and has thus loosened its grip. No uniformity has been adopted while fixing the hinges on the doors. There is a small hook to check the lock of the door. OP has placed the hook made of small iron scraps instead of steel hooks. Handles of the locks are of very cheap quality and are not of the choice of the complainant, as undertaken by OP at the time of booking. OP has not fixed the moulding alongwith security doors. Locks are not working properly, doors are giving cracking noise while opening and closing. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant has prayed for directions to OP to install the doors with exact prescribed fittings and fixtures and exact dimension of frames with neat and clean finish as displayed in their showroom otherwise refund money as paid alongwith compensation.
2. In its reply, OP has denied all the allegations of complainant, alleging counter allegation that complainant is putting the blame only just to avoid the payment of Rs. 71,650/- due which has not  paid by complainant to the OP. As per OP, at the time of booking complainant had to pay 30% of the contract amount but he paid only about 10%.  Till date only 2,03,735/- (Rupees Two lacs three thousand seven hundred thirty five only) is paid by the complainant which comes to 75% only.  
3. On merit OP states that after delivery of doors when contractor visited for installation, he found that walls of the house are not of correct water level / straight, which complainant has also admitted. The contractor required the complainant first to rectify the walls, as without the walls being straight the alignment of doors wouldn’t be exact and there will be difficulty in setting the doors to be installed. But complainant didn’t get the same rectified and insisted OP to fix the doors in the same walls assuring that it will all be OK.  OP’s contractor had to incur more expenditure and twice the labour and time and had to face so many hurdles in fixing the doors on the said walls. After some time, complainant had also started shouting and abusing the labour, who stopped the work. Thereafter on great persuasion of OP the labour again started the work. Lastly, finding that without rectifying walls installation is not possible, complainant himself suggested to do remaining work only after the walls are rectified. Regarding submission of photographs by complainant, OP not admitting the same has challenged the manner, time and veracity of the photographs. Work is done by skilled and not casual labour. Work was to the satisfaction of complainant himself and the delay whatever is only due to complainant’s inaction / inability to rectify the walls. Filing of complaint after such a long time also shows that complainant is trying to wriggle out his liability to pay the amount still due.
4. In replication complainant has denied all the counter allegations and reiterated contents of the complaint. Replication specifically denied the allegations of OP that complainant is liable to pay Rs. 71,650/- as on date and complainant has filed the complaint to avoid his liability. Further states that as per agreement Rs. 71,650/- is payable only after installation is completed. He never insisted to install doors on alleged defective walls. Rather all civil works in the house, had already been completed and complainant never undertook to rectify walls. Even if walls presumed not fit for installation of doors it was OP only to see how proper installation can be made. He never abused and shouted on labour and never shown his satisfaction on the work done by OP.
5. Complainant had filed his affidavit of evidence with relevant documents while OP has failed to file its evidence inspite of so many opportunities to appear and present its case.
6. Heard and perused the record.  
7. During the course of proceedings OP offered the complainant to get the work in question set right and completed from any third person of his confidence and satisfaction, expenses whereof shall be borne by him if complainant submit a DD of Rs. 71,850/- in the name of President of the Forum for which complainant agreed. But the proposal could not be materialized as on the next date complainant stated that he can’t trust the OP and shown his unwilling to agree with the proposal of OP. Thereafter, OP stopped appearing and participating in further proceedings of this Forum inspite of so many opportunities.
8. This Forum was constrained to rely only on the written statement, filed by OP.
9. Going through the evidence i.e. actual photograph of site as well as CD alongwith Inspection Report of qualified engineer placed on record by complainant, we find all the allegations of complainant to be genuine while the same is not controverted by OP. The only defence raised by OP is that the complainant has filed this complaint only just to avoid remaining amount of Rs. 71,650/- which has not been paid by complainant to OP. However, there is no specific denial of the allegation raised in complaint, that the installation of door has not been completed. In respect of installation of doors already made, only defence of OP is that it was only due to walls of the house of complainant being not in symmetry. But OP has placed no proof on record, in support of this contention. Even otherwise, proposal of OP to allow complainant to get the things rectified to his own satisfaction from any third person at the expenses of OP himself is sufficient proof of the allegation of complainant that the doors were not installed perfectly and have problems as stated by complainant. Now with respect to quality of doors complainant has no objection, only grievance is with respect of service by OP in installing the doors. As per complainant’s own statement in his replication, charges for providing this service were agreed to as 25% of total contract amount of Rs. 2,71,650/- (Rupees Two Lacs Seventy One thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) which comes to Rs. 71,650/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only). But as OP has failed to provide efficient service, it is not entitled for said amount.
10. In this manner OP has failed to controvert the same and proved that walls of the premises in question were not of water level. Not only this, OP has indirectly admitted the facts of defective / deficient service, by offering the complainant to get the defect rectified himself at its own expenses. Regarding remaining amount of Rs. 71,650/- both parties agreed. Only defence is that as per OP it has become due while complainant states that it shall become due only if doors are properly installed.

Thus, the of complaint stands prove to the extent that no doubt doors supplied are upto mark but OP has failed to stand by its commitment for providing proper installation of doors. Therefore, holding OP guilty for deficiency in service, we direct the OP to;

1. Rectify all the defects in the installation of doors, to the satisfaction of complainant with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment;

Failing which to forgo the remaining amount of Rs. 71,650/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only); and

2. Pay cost of litigation in a sum of Rs. 5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred only);

to the complainant.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  27.02.2017)    

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member