Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/548/2018

Next Level Fitness - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s MFLOW Techno Industries - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar Banga

11 May 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/548/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	02/11/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	11/05/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Level Fitness through its Authorized Representative Harpreet Singh s/o Surinder Singh R/o Barnala Road, Waheguru Nagar, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District S.B.S. Nagar.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1.   M/s Mflow Techno Industries, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, through its Owner Amarjit Kaur Saini W/o Jaswinder Singh Saini, R/o Plot No.54, 10 Marla, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 

2.   Rajinder Singh, Manager-cum-Dealing Incharge, M/s Mflow Techno Industries, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   RATTAN SINGH THAKUR PRESIDENT

          SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	None for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

In brief, the Complainant firm intended to open a gym at Nawanshahr under the name & style “Next Level Fitness” and availed the services of the Opposite Parties for delivering and installation two air conditioners of 5½ ton each for the said gym. The price of two units, inclusive of accessories & installation was stated to be Rs.3,30,000/-, out of which the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,16,000/-. The Complainant claims, despite receiving the said amount, when the Opposite Parties delayed the matter intentionally, a legal notice dated 11.09.2018 was served upon them, but to no success. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed written statement, admitting the factum of doing the business of selling & installing air conditioners. It has been pleaded that the instant complaint is not maintainable, as the Complainant firm is running its business for earning profits commercially. It has been maintained that Opposite Party No.1 performed its part of work of the initial stage i.e. base work and after the false ceiling, the air condition plant was to be installed, but the Complainant failed to perform its part of work of false ceiling and not sending the rest of the amount as per quotation. While denying the payment of Rs.2,16,000/-, Opposite Party No.1 admitted that it has only received a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- which has been paid by the Complainant from its current account on 20.06.2018. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 filed his written statement, inter alia, pleading that he is not the owner of M/s Mflow Techno Industries and has only given technical assistance for what he was attached with the said Firm. It has been submitted that the owner of the Firm is Amarjit Kaur Saini who can tell better about the case. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Subsequently, after filing reply, neither Opposite Party No.2 nor anybody appeared on his behalf, therefore, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.05.2019. Later on, Sh. Atul Kumar Sethi, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and he was allowed to join the proceedings, at the stage the case was fixed.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

6.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

 

8.      Annexure C-2, which is a quotation of Opposite Party No.1, annexed by the Complainant contains the detail pricing of the A.C. units and other connected works. The said quotation also contains the detailed terms & conditions. Perusal of Condition No.2 of the aforesaid terms & conditions categorically shows, payment 100% advance of Machine and the ducting payment of 50% advance along with purchase order 50% after P.I. Thus, the Complainant was required to pay Rs.1,96,000/- plus Rs.41,250/- (50% payment towards ducting work to be carried out) which works out to be Rs.2,37,250/-. As against it, the Complainant claims that an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- stood paid to the Opposite Party No.1 for installation of the subject air conditioners. However, on perusal of the documents attached by the Complainant, we observed that only an amount of Rs.1,96,000/- has been paid towards the basic unit only and there is nothing on record to prove that an amount of Rs.20,000/- as claimed by the Complainant has been paid to the Opposite Party No.1. It has been maintained by Opposite Party No.1 that it performed its part of work of the initial stage i.e. base work and after the false ceiling, the air condition plant was to be installed, but the Complainant failed to perform its part of work of false ceiling and not sending the rest of the amount as per the quotation. It is important to note that the Complainant has not been able to rebut the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 by adducing any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to show that the Opposite Party No.1 failed to perform its part. In these circumstances, we feel that it is the Complainant itself who is responsible for the whole mess as the Complainant failed to make the requisite payments to the Opposite Party No.1 as per the terms & conditions contained in the quotation Annexure C-2. The namby pamby pleas set up by the Complainant are vague, evasive and leads this Forum nowhere.
9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11^th May, 2020                           

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”  

 

 

                                                   

 

DISTRICT FORUM – I

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 548 OF 2018

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 11th day of May, 2020

O R D E R        In this case, arguments were heard on 11.03.2020, but the order could not be dictated due to lockdown/ curfew imposed by the Chandigarh Administration due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The Forum re-opened on 04.05.2020 in compliance with the order dated 03.05.2020 issued by the Chandigarh Administration. Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.           After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

 

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER