Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/507

Jasvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Yogesh Kaushish

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  507 dated 01.11.2021.                                       Date of decision: 23.10.2024. 

 

Jaswinder Kaur aged about 64 years wife of Sh. Basambar Lal, resident of Plot No.157, Street No.2, New Akash Nagar, Ludhiana.

2^nd Address:- Street No.8, Har Rai Nagar, Nagesh Factory, Back Side of Temple, Jalandhar Byepass, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Samplay Enterprises, Village Rajowal Modd, on Road from Ladowal to Nurpur through its Partners,
2. Sunil Kumar
3. Ravinder Kumar both partners M/s. Samplay Enterprises, Village Rajowal Modd, on Road from Ladowal to Nurpur, Ludhiana.

Mobile Number:-73557-96033, 98772-62407, 95172-82679.…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Yogesh K. Kaushik, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh. Harjinder Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that OP1 to OP3 are engaged in the business of manufacturing of Doors, Windows etc. of wood glass and aluminum and its supply at Ludhiana. As the complainant has been constructing his house at plot measuring 140 sq. yards situated at Street No.8, Har Rai Nagar, Nagesh Factory, Backside of Temple, Jalandhar Byepass, Ludhiana and OP2 & OP3 approached her with offer to manufacture the doors, windows of his house under construction. After negotiations, the OPs were to manufacture and install doors and windows both of glass/wood and steel net on every door and window and committed to use Marandi wood only and other material of good quality. On 17.12.2020, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- out of deal of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant stated that the OPs prepared only single doors i.e. glass or wood doors instead of glass/wood and steel net and also lingered on the work on one pretext or the other. Even the OPs stopped the work. The complainant asked them to complete the work as per their commitment but they did not adhere to her genuine request.  The complainant filed complaint No.1977080 against the OPs at P.S. Salem Tabri where they were summoned on 02.03.2021 by the I.O. and statements of both parties were recorded but no action was taken by the concerned officers despite her repeated requests and visits. The complainant further stated that she shifted in the new house after preparing some portion to reside but the OPs did not provide the doors, windows despite the repeated requests made by the complainant. Even the OPs refused to refund the amount received by them. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, agony and harassment etc. due to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, the complainant prayed to issue directions to the Ops to complete the work as per the commitment and also to direct OP2 and OP3 to repair the already fitted doors/windows at her house. The complainant also prayed for issuing directing to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- litigation expenses of Rs.51,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant having no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come with clean hands; concealment of material facts etc. The OPs stated that they received Rs.30,000/- from the complainant for the work of constructed 18 Windows and Two Doors  and they bought raw material for making the said windows and doors. According to the OPs, they have done the work of Rs.26,080/- and earlier they done the wooden work of house of complainant at House No.157, New Ashok Nagar, Ludhiana for Rs.5000/-. As such, they have done the total work of Rs.31,080/- and out of which, they had only received Rs.30,000/-  and now an amount of Rs.1080/- was due towards the complainant. The OPs further stated that the complainant had moved a false complaint vide complaint No.1977080 in which she admitted that the OPs had done the work of woods and doors but intentionally said that it was not liked by her.

                    On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C17 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA and Ex. RB of Sh. Sunil Kumar; affidavit Ex. RC of  Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Partner of OP company as well as affidavit Ex. RD of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o. Sh. Dara Singh, R/o. Village Rajjowal, District Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3, Mark-A and Mark-B and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavits and documents produced on record by the parties.

6.                The complainant approached, negotiated and finally engaged the services of the OPs for making and installing the 2 doors, 18 windows of glass/wood of Marandi quality wood. The bill was finalized for Rs.70,000/- out of which admittedly, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to the OPs on 17.12.2020. According to the complainant, the OPs just partially executed the order and left the agreed work incomplete. The complainant was also made to approach Police Station Salem Tabri in this regard where the police recorded the statements of both the parties.

7.                On the other hand, the OPs fairly admitted that they had already executed the major part of the work on agreed terms and have installed 18 windows and 2 doors at the residence of the complainant, value of which is worked out to be Rs.26,080/-. It was also submitted that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was outstanding out of the earlier work executed at the instance of the complainant and as such, an amount of Rs.1,080/- is still due towards the complainant.

8.                Both the parties have drawn attention of this Commission towards the photographs attached with their respective pleadings which lend credence to the version of the OPs regarding installation of 18 windows and 2 doors. The statement of the OPs recorded before the police is also on the same lines. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

 

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.