The complainant Gurmeet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against M/s Rama Glass & Plywood (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased various items including sumica sheets from the opposite party during the period 2017-18 against bills/invoices. It is alleged that the opposite party fully assured the complainant that the same are of best/standard quality and there will be no complaint of any kind. The opposite party charged Rs.4200/- per sheet from the complainant and bill/invoice No.27667 dated 19.06.2017 for Rs.94,570/- was issued by the opposite party.
It is also alleged that complainant got affixed/fitted the said sheets in his Kothi by spending huge amount on account of labour etc., but it is matter of great regret, pain and sorrow that 35 sunmica sheets supplied by the opposite party to the complainant, were/are of sub standard quality and big cracks have been developed in the same. The said sunmica sheets have also damaged the plywood, which was got affixed/fitted by the complainant under it and have also lowered down the utility of the other material also.
It is also alleged that complainant has to get removed the said 35 sheets and in their place, new sunmica sheets and other material to be got affixed/fitted/replaced by spending huge amount. The cost of above said sheets is Rs.1,47,000/-. The complainant has to spend money for getting removed the damaged sheets and re-affixing/refitting of new sheets i.e. more than Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith cost of new sheets and in this way, the complainant has suffered a loss of more than Rs.4,50,000/-.
It is further alleged that complainant got checked his building and above said material from Mistri Jagwinder Singh S/o Pal Singh, Raman Furniture Workshop, Raman Mandi (Bathinda) and also from some other skilled persons of the said trade. They also observed that the sunmica sheets fitted in the Kothi (House) of the complainant is of sub standard/inferior quality due to which cracks have been developed and the same have been damaged.
The complainant alleged that he brought the said facts to the knowledge of the opposite party and requested it either to replace the sheets or to make good of his loss, but the opposite party failed to do the needful. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite party dated 18.08.2018, but to no effect. The said act and Conduct of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Besides this opposite party has also committed cheating, fraud and misappropriation with the complainant.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of the material/sheets till realization and and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- along with any other additional, alternative and consequential relief.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement. The opposite party in its written version took legal objections that the present complaint is non-maintainable is its present form. That the complaint is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary party as the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the product as party. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to decide such cases and that the complainant is not a consumer.. The complaint is false, frivolous, and vexatious. There is no deficiency in service as the opposite party has sold the product in the same condition purchased from the manufacturer.
On merits, the opposite party has admitted that complainant purchased various items from the opposite party but denied that complainant purchased sunmica vide bill invoice No.27667 dated 19.6.2017. It has been pleaded that opposite party has sold the product to the complainant in the condition as he purchased from the manufacturer of the products and has not given any kind of guarantee/warranty. The complainant has not shown or initimated to the opposite party about alleged cracks. The affixing/ fitting of the sunmica sheets mainly depends on the material used for affixing the sheets and the skill/method of carpenter who affix the sheet. If the carpenter did not affix the sheet in a proper way or press the same, there remains air in the sheet and ply-board which cause cracks, Therefore, in this way, seller is not responsible.
It has been further pleaded that it is not proved that Mistri Jagwinder Singh is a skilled person or doing job of carpenter. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 27.11.2018 (Ex.C-15), and photocopy of other documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14) and in additional evidence affidavit dated 13-5-2022 of Jagwinder Singh (Ex. C-16).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party tendered into evidence two Affidavits of Pankaj Maheshwari dated 22-1-2019 and 1-9-2022 respectively (Ex.OP-1/1 and OP.1/2) and closed the rebuttal evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
The complainant has alleged that he purchased 35 Sunmica Sheets and opposite party charged Rs.4200/- per sheet from the complainant and bill/invoice No.27667 dated 19.06.2017 for Rs.94,570/- was issued. Further the allegation of the complainant is that opposite party supplied inferior quality of sunmica sheets due to which he has suffered huge financial loss.
Ex. C-2 is the bill No. 27667 dated 19-6-2017 for Rs. 94,570/-. A perusal of this document reveals that there is not mentioned even a single sunmica sheet and said bill has been issued on credit basis and for some other items/goods. Therefore, aforesaid bill referred by complainant does not prove purchase of any sunmica sheet from opposite party.
The complainant has also alleged that opposite party charged Rs. 4200/- per sheet. The evidence placed on file also does not prove his this version. There is no bill to prove that complainant purchased 35 sunmica sheets @ Rs. 4200/- sheet from the opposite party.
The complainant has placed on file a note/statement ( Ex. C-12) dated 17-8-2018 signed by one Jagwinder Singh. The said Jagwinder Singh has mentioned in this note that :-
“He is resident of Raman Mandi, District and working as carpanter. That he is working under the name as Rama Furniture Workshop, Raman Mandi and he has experience of 12 years in this filed. He has further mentioned that he has good knowledge about wood, ply and sunmica and he can inspect these items/goods and can tell about the quality of such products. Jagwinder Singh has further stated in his said statement/note that that on 17-8-2018 he visited the kothi/house of complainant and checked fitted wood, ply and sunmica and after checking/inspecting the same, he found that there are cracks in the sunmica and the reason for this is bad quality material due to cracks and gradually sunmica will fall down in near future.
This document placed on file by complainant also does not support the version of the complainant. The said Jagwinder Singh in his statement, no where stated that being carpenter he worked and fitted the said sunmica in the house of the complainant. However, later on, complainant tendered in additional evidence, affidavit of said Jagwinder Singh (Ex. C-16) wherein he has stated that he worked in new construction kothi of complainant.
A perusal of both aforesaid documents reveals that first statement of said Jagwinder Singh (Ex. C-12) is dated 17-08-2018 and affidavit (Ex. C-16) is dated 13-5-2022 i.e. after about 4 years time. Hence, the 2nd version of Jagwinder Singh is nothing else than the afterthought cooked story which cannot be relied upon. Moreover perusal of complaint as well as affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-15) does not reveal that said Jagwinder Singh ever worked in Kothi of complainant or affixed the said sunmica if any.
Thus, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant failed to prove his version by placing cogent and convincing evidence on file. Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
25-01-2023
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh )
Member
