Haryana

Rohtak

228/2016

Smt. Sangeeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiv Plywood Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.K. Munjal

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. 228/2016
( Date of Filing : 29 Apr 2016 )
 
1. Smt. Sangeeta
Smt. Sangeeta W/o Sh. Virender Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Har Narayan R/o H.No. B-101, Sector35, Suncity Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Shiv Plywood Traders
M/s Shiv Plywood Traders, Shila By Pass Chowk, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian PRESIDENT
  Dr. Renu Chaudhary MEMBER
  Mrs. Tripti Pannu MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sh. M.K. Munjal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh. Balram Sharma, Advocate
Dated : 03 Mar 2020
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                                    Complaint No. : 228.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 29.04.2016.

                                                                    Decided on       : 03.03.2020.

 

  1. Smt. Sangeeta Age 44 years,  w/o Sh. Virender Kumar s/o Sh. Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Har Narayan R/o H.No.B-101, Sector-35, Suncity, Rohtak.
  2. Sh. Virender Kumar s/o Sh. Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Har Narayan r/o H.No.B-101, Sector-35, Suncity, Rohtak.

 

                                                                    ………..Complainants.

 

                             Vs.

 

  1. M/s Shiv Plywood Traders, Sheela Bye Pass Chowk, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through proprietor.
  2. Bhutan-tuf-Royal Timber & Plywood, Shop No.5, Rajendra Market, Sikanderpur, Ghosi, Gurgaon-122002(Behind City Court).

 

……….Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh.M.K.Munjal, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh.Balram Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                    

                                      ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

 

1.                          Present complaint has been filed by the complainants with the averments that they had purchased 295’ ply@ Rs.98/-per ft. of Bhutan Tuf Co.  from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.29008/-. The opposite party had sold duplicate and inferior quality of ply to the complainant  as after polish, it came to the notice of the complainant that there was lining  in the alleged plywood. Due to which complainants suffered loss of Rs.524258/- having labour expense of Rs.125250/-, Wood Expenses Rs.336000/-, PU Polish Rs.100000/- and Hardware & Fevicol expenses Rs.24000/-. Complainants requested the opposite parties to compensate him but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.524258/- alongwith compensation of Rs.100000/- to the complainants.   

2.                          After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that  it is denied that the complainants have ever purchased 295’ ply of Bhutan Tuff Co. amounting to Rs.29008/- from the answering respondent, so the question of providing the bill or question of selling duplicate ply to the complainant by the answering respondent does not arise.  It is denied that answering respondent has cheated the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.  However, notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved and opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.05.2017 of this Forum.

3.                          Complainants in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C30 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.03.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 27.11.2017.

4.                          We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspect of the case very carefully.

5.                          In the present complaint main plea taken by the respondent is that since there is no deficiency in service on the part of it, hence the complaint is not maintainable. On the other hand, the main plea taken by the complainant is that the wood supplied by the opposite party No.1 was of inferior quality, due to which he suffered a huge loss. To prove the same, complainant has placed on record copy of temporary bill issued by the opposite party No.1 Ex.C1, copy of sale deed E.xC2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C23, affidavit Ex.C24 of painter, affidavit Ex.C26 of Sh. Satbir Singh, Carpenter,  CD Ex.C28, written version of CD Ex.C29 and certificate Ex.C30. Complainant has also moved an application for directing the opposite party No.1 Aman Batra proprietor of M/s Shiv Plywood Traders, Rohtak, to give his specimen voice sample and for sending the same to FSL Madhuban, Karnal for comparing the same with the CD containing the conversation between complainant and opposite party and accordingly as per order dated 16.07.2018 the opposite party was advised to give his voice sample. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed a revision petition against this order before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula which was allowed and the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 19.08.2019 had set aside the order dated 16.07.2018 of this Forum.  

6.                          After going though the file and hearing the parties we have observed that before filing the application by the complainant and before the order dated 19.08.2019 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkukla, the complainant has already placed on file CD containing the conversation between the complainants and respondent no.1 and transcription of the same in Hindi on dated 08.03.2018. As per the conversation of CD placed on record as Ex.C29, it is admitted  by the Aman i.e. proprietor of opposite party No.1 that the complainants had purchased the plywood worth Rs.27000/- from the opposite party No.1 and he also admitted to replace the ply but denied to pay the polish and carpenter charges etc. It is also admitted by the opposite party No.1 that temporary bill was issued and no valid bill was not issued by the opposite party No.1. Hence from the alleged conversation between the parties, it is proved that the opposite party No.1 has sold the inferior quality of wood to the complainants worth Rs.29008/- which is also proved from the bill Ex.C1, due to which complainant suffered loss of alleged plywood alongwith other charges of polish, labour and carpenter etc. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. As such, the law cited by ld.counsel for the opposite party no.1 2003(1)CPC of Hon’ble U.T. Commission, Chandigarh titled as Shri Surinder Kumar Singhal Vs. Shri Mahadev is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.  Regarding the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant, he has submitted that, he suffered a loss of Rs.524258/- including the labour charges wroth Rs.125250/-, wood charges worth Rs.336000/-, polish charges worth Rs.100000/- and hardware and fevicol etc. amounting to Rs.24000/-. But to prove the alleged charges under the different heads, he has not placed on record any bill except Ex.C1/Annexure JN-1, Annexure JN-11. Hence in our view, it would be suffice to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.100000/- to meet the ends of justice.

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) to the complainants within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision till its realization to the complainants.

8.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.03.2020.

                                                          ...................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

 

                                                          .................................................

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.                              

 

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Dr. Renu Chaudhary]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Mrs. Tripti Pannu]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.