Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/351/2023

RAKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S R.R. ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

SIDDHARTH PANDIT

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/351/2023
Date of Institution	:	25.7.2023
Date of Decision	:	3/1 /2024

 

Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Sudarshan Dutt, R/o House No.2725, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. M/s R.R. Enterprises Shop No.50, New Grain Market, Jalandhar, Punjab, 144008 through its proprietor/authorized signatory Madan Lal Mohindru.
2. Sh. Madan Lal Mohindru, Proprietor/authorized signatory M/s R.R. Enterprises Shop NO.50, New Grain Market Jalandhar, Punjab 144008.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Diksha Mehta,  Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs exparte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is one of the co-owner of house No.2725, Sector 38-C , Chandigarh and for the reconstruction of the said house, he engaged one Ashwani known to OP No.2, who was running the business of sanitary products at Jalandhar.  On the recommendations of  Ashwani Kumar, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 in July with his wife and daughter in law and purchased three  i.e. (i) (6) Wall hanging Bibiana white  (two PCS) (ii) Wall Hanging prius white (One PCS) and (iii) Concealed tank (Gabrid) with frame & button  (one PCS)  for total sale consideration of Rs.26,710/-  vide invoice  Annexure C-1 dated 25.3.2022. At the time of  sale of sanitary products the OPs agreed that the complainant shall make the payment  in the account of OP No.2 at the time of delivery of goods. On receiving the sanitary products transported by OP No.2 the complainant paid the price of the said products in addition to Rs.4500/- as transportation charges. However, on the opening of boxes, containing the sanitary products it was found that except the concealed tank two other products  sent by OP No.2 were not the same which was selected by the complainant in the shop of OP No.2 at Jalandhar as the complainant had purchased wall hanging Bibiana white (two PCS) of Varmora company (wall mounted) but the OP No.2  sent two pieces floor mounted EWC”s” of Varmora company in which one was of white colour and other was of ivory colour and the cost of the same is around Rs.1000/- each and secondly the complainant purchased wall hanging prius white (One PCS) but instead of  sending a new piece of the same, OP No.2  sent second hand piece of the same without any fittings, seat cover & seal set. Immediately the aforesaid defects were pointed out to the OP No.2 by the daughter-in-law of the complainant  and pictures of wrong products were also shared with the OP No.2 through whatsapp  number and the OP No.2 had admitted the mistake of the wrong material  and the copies of Whatsapp messages  Annexure C-2(colly). Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs  with the request to send the  selected material but the OPs  were adamant on the condition that the transportation charges will be borne by the complainant despite of the fact that the OPs had sent wrong products to the complainant which were never selected by the complainant and thereafter the OPs  asked the complainant to bear the transportation charges  for the replacement of the products.  The aforesaid act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant also sent legal notice vide Annexure C-3 but with no result.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs was properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 18.9.2023.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the  complainant had  purchased three sanitary products from the OPs for sale consideration of Rs.26,710/- out of which two  products  mentioned at sr. No.(i)&(ii)  of the tax invoice  Annexure C-1 (hereinafter referred to be as subject product) were sent by the OPs to the complainant which was never selected by the complainant  and the OP No.2 has also admitted this fact that by mistake the aforesaid products have been sent to the complainant but had insisted that the complainant should bear the transportation charges in case he wants to replace the  subject  products, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1  the tax invoice indicates that  the  OPs had sent three sanitary  products to the complainant at his given address at Chandigarh. Annexure C-2  is the whatsapp chat between the  complainant and OP No.2 showing that floor mounted EWC”s” were sent to the complainant and the OPs had admitted by agreeing that products will be replaced subject to the return of the same by the complainant at Jalandhar or the complainant shall bear the transportation charges. Annexure C-3 is the copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the Ops which was not replied by the OPs.
   3. From the perusal of entire evidence led by the complainant which is unrebutted by the OPs , one thing is clear on record that the OPs had sold the aforesaid three sanitary products to the complainant out of which two were wrongly sent by the OPs and the OPs had agreed to replace the same subject to the condition that the complainant shall bear the transportation charges. However, when it has come on record that the OPs had issued the tax invoice  on the given address of the complainant at Chandigarh and the subject products were delivered by the Ops at Chandigarh, the condition imposed by the OPs that the subject products will be replaced subject to condition that the complainant shall bear the transportation charges  itself amounts to deficiency in service as the wrong subject products having been delivered to the complainant on  account of the fault of the Ops and not of the complainant as the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the subject product to complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be partly allowed and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹16,820/-to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. However, it is made clear that on  receipt of the entire amount, the complainant shall return the subject product to the OPs.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 3/01/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member