DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 1111-10
Date of Institution : 12.10.2010
Date of Decision : 26.2.2015
Rajiv Kumar S/o Gurbachan Singh partner of M/s. Diwan Singh Gurbachan Singh 489, New Grain Market Mandi Bhagtanwala, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
The Partner/Proprietor of M/s. White Marble House, 18-A, Albert Road, Amritsar
The Partner/Proprietor of M/s. Le-Crete, 81-C, Albert Road, Amritsar adjoining Mohan International Hotel,Amritsar
The Managing Director of M/s. Lispo I Pvt.Ltd., 231, Sector 6, IMG Manesar Gurgaon, Haryana
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bhandari, Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh. Ashwani Bansal,Adv.
For opposite party No.3 : Deleted vide order dated 29.11.2010 -2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rajiv Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he was approached by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 for the fitting of kitchen fitting accessories/units and other goods. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that they will fix the kitchen fittings accessories of opposite party No.3 and further assured that they are authorized to sell the kitchen fittings accessories of opposite party No.3 and further assured that these fittings are of good standard and fine quality. On the assurance of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 , complainant placed an order of two kitchen fittings and other accessories for their plot No.15 & 16 situated at Roop Nagar, Amritsar. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 fixed the accessories and kitchen fittings in plot of complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and received the full and final payment towards the complainant. The complainant purchased some other goods vide other bills and paid cash amount to the opposite parties. After the fitting the complainant came to know that the fittings which were fixed in the kitchen are not of such
-3-
standard and quality as were shown to him at the time of purchase and it was not properly fitted and there is leakage among the units. The kitchen fittings fixed by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are of much inferior quality and not upto standard/ quality. The complainant approached the opposite parties to replace the fittings and to fix the fittings of standard and quality which were shown to him at the time of purchase and to stop the leakage between the fittings, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to change the kitchen fittings with the kitchen fittings of standard and good quality of the make of opposite party No.3. Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant wanted to get the kitchen fittings and visited the opposite parties and selected fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd for which the replying opposite parties are authorized dealer. Replying opposite parties had shown the prescribed rate list for the fittings and items to be fitted pertaining to M/s. Lispo India Pvt.ltd. But the budget of the complainant was lower than the company budget, then the complainant had got some modifications in the package and package with amended items and rates was given to the complainant. A drawing was prepared and was also given to the complainant. The complainant and
-4-
his brother approved the rates, quality and drawing which were given to him. Both the complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia jointly placed an order for fitting of kitchen fittings of opposite party No.3 with some amendments. The complainant had received the kitchen fittings material worth Rs. 3,34,626/- against proper bills and made payment of Rs. 3,05,000/- through three cheques and in this way a balance sum of Rs. 29,626/- is outstanding for payment by the complainant and his brother. Besides kitchen fittings the complainant had purchased other gadgets of Perry Wear Company for which cash bills were issued from other firm. The complainant had purchased material for total sum of Rs. 2,24,653/- and made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in installments on different dates and thus a sum of Rs. 24,853/- is still outstanding for payment in this account. It was submitted that on completion of the work the opposite parties demanded the outstanding amount due towards complainant and his brother, then the complainant and his brother started raising dispute with the replying opposite parties. The representative of the company also visited the plot in May 2010 and checked all the material , fittings and reported OK . It was submitted that the kitchen fittings are of high quality dry wood works in two parts i.e. one in carcases/boxes and other is shutters/doors. Both these parts were supplied and fitted as per choice of the complainant of the standard company for which the replying opposite parties are dealers. It was submitted that Lispo Kitchen Pvt.Ltd was formely known as Lispo India Pvt.Ltd and are sister
-5-
concerns. When the complainant placed an order the replying opposite parties had stock of shutters of Lispo India Pvt.Ltd as they had puprchased in bulk this item from the company but carcases/boxes were not in stock ,therefore the same were purchased from Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd of Phagwara, who are Lispo running Dealers and bills were directly made in the name of complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia and payments were made to them. It was submitted that the kitchen fittings were fitted as per choice and order of the complainant of standard company Lispo and other water in/out fittings and other gadgets were fitted of Perry Wear Company as per order and choice of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. It may be mentioned here that as per order of this Forum dated 29.11.2010, opposite party No.3 was ordered not to be summoned.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 2.8.2010 Ex.C-1, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-2 to C-4, copy of reply to legal notice by opposite party No.3 Ex.C-5, copy of reply by opposite parties No.1 & 2 Ex.C-6, copies of bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-24, copy of letter Ex.C-25, verification report of kitchen fittings Ex.C-28.
5. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Shiv Kumar Uppal Ex.RW1/A, certificate issued by Lispo Ex.R-1, Certificate Ex.R-2, copy of account ledger Ex.R-3,R-4 and R-5, copy of invoice dated 15.2.2010 Ex.R-6, affidavit of
-6-
Balwant Rai Sharma of M/s. Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd Ex.R-7, affidavit of Sh.Sumit Prop of Le-Crete Ex.R-8, additional affidavit of Sh.Shiv Kumar uppal Prop of White Marbles Ex.R-9, affidavit of Sh.Ashish Khanna Ex.R-10 alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP17 and Ex.R-11,additional affidavit of Ashish Khanna Ex.DX1/A,copy of dealer list Ex.DX1/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 who are sister concerns in the kitchen fittings and selected fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd with some modifications in the company package of
M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. The complainant alleges that opposite parties No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that they are the authorized dealers of kitchen fittings accessories of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. Resultantly the opposite parties No.1 & 2 fixed the accessories/kitchen fittings in the plot of the complainant of the value of Rs. 2,00,000/- approximately. The complainant further alleges that opposite parties No.1 & 2 received the full and final payment and nothing was due payable by the complainant to the opposite parties for the aforesaid kitchen fittings/accessories. The complainant further alleged that he also purchased some other goods from
-7-
opposite parties No.1 & 2 and paid the entire amount to the opposite parties . After
the fitting , the complainant came to know that the fittings fixed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not of standard and quality which were shown/assured to the complainant at the time of purchase and the same were not properly fitted. There is leakage among the units. The kitchen fittings fixed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 allegedly of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd were of much inferior quality. The complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to replace the fittings and to fix the fittings of standard quality which were shown to him at the time of purchase of these units and to stop the leakage between the fittings, so that there would not be any damage or loss to the complainant. But the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant served legal notice upon the opposite parties as well as M/s. Lispo India Pvt Ltd, through his counsel. The opposite parties submitted reply in which they admitted that they have installed the kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. However, the complainant received reply dated 12.8.2010 from M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd in which they submitted that the opposite parties are not their authorized agents. They have not purchased any fittings from their company. So it is clear that the opposite parties have thrown dust in the eyes of the complainant by affixing kitchen fittings of some other company and of lower standard and quality causing huge loss to the complainant that is why there was leakage in the kitchen fittings. Ld.counsel for
-8-
the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant approached the opposite parties and selected kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd for which the opposite parties are authorized dealer. Opposite parties had shown the prescribed rate list for the fittings and items to be fitted pertaining to M/s. Lispo India Pvt.ltd. But the budget of the complainant was lower than the company budget. Then the complainant had got some modifications in the package and package with amended items and rates was given to the complainant. A drawing was prepared and was also given to the complainant. The complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia approved the rates, quality and drawing which were given to him. Both the complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia jointly placed order for fitting of kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd with some amendments. Resultantly the kitchen fittings/accessories were installed by the opposite parties at the premises of the complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia. The complainant and his brother had received kitchen fittings material worth Rs. 3,34,626/- against proper bills from M/s. White Marbel House and made payment of Rs. 3,05,000/- only through three cheques which were duly entered in the account books of the opposite parties. The balance amount of Rs. 29,626/- is outstanding for payment by the complainant and his brother. Apart from the
-9-
aforesaid kitchen fittings, the complainant and his brother had purchased other gadgets of Perry Wear Company for their house fittings for which cash bills were issued. The complainant had purchased other material amounting to Rs. 2,24,653/- against cash bill and made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- approximately and that too in installments which were duly entered in the account books of the opposite parties. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 24,653/- is also outstanding for payment by the complainant regarding other goods purchased. The opposite parties alleges that after completing all work of both houses of complainant and his brother , opposite parties demanded outstanding amount from the complainant and his brother. Then they started raising frivolous dispute/objection to the fittings and material. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had received the goods/material entirely to his satisfaction but now he has raised frivolous dispute. The representaive of the company also visited the site of the complainant in May 2010 and checked and submitted his report that all the material,fittings are OK and that report was duly signed and endorsed by the complainant and his brother. So all these allegations levelled by the complainant are not genuine. There was no leakage in the kitchen fittings. The kitchen fittings are of high quality dry wood work in two parts i.e. one in carcases/boxes and other is shutters/doors and these fittings were fitted in the kitchen of the complainant and his brother as per their choice of the standard company Lispo Kitchen Pvt.Ltd and now known as Lispo
-10-
Kitchen Pvt Ltd. All the material was available with the opposite parties, of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd as they had purchased in bulk from the company . But the carcases/boxes were not in stock with the opposite parties, therefore, the same were purchased from M/s. Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd of Phagwara who are also the Lispo Running Dealers and bills were directly made in the name of Deepak Bhatia and Rajiv Kumar ,both brothers and the payments were made to them directly by the complainant. The complainant had not made full payment of the fittings/accessories to the opposite parties No.1 & 2. When the opposite parties No.1 & 2 demanded their balance amount from the complainant, the complainant and his brother raised the aforesaid dispute/objection. Opposite parties denied that they are not the authorized agents of Lispo India Pvt.Ltd . In this regard it may be confirmed from the company. Opposite parties denied that the kitchen fittings were not of standard and quality which were shown to the complainant at the time of purchase. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant approached opposite parties No.1 & 2 who are sister concerns for kitchen fittings and selected fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd with some modifications in the company package of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd and this fact has been admitted by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version.
-11-
Resultantly opposite parties No.1 & 2 fitted kitchen fittings at the premises of complainant Rajiv Kumar and at the premises of the brother of Rajiv Kumar namely Deepak Bhatia. The kitchen fittings fixed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 at the premises of the complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia, were, as alleged by opposite parties No.1 & 2 , of M/s. Lispo India Pvt Ltd as ordered by the complainant. But these fittings, as alleged by the complainant were not of M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that they are the authorized dealers of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd and they had fixed the kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd at the premises of the complainant and his brother . Not only this opposite parties No.1 & 2 have also alleged that one representative of the opposite party No.3 came to check the kitchen fittings at the premises of the complainant and submitted his report by stating that the kitchen fittings are OK and there is no defect in the fittings . Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed affidavit of Ashish Khanna son of Pardeep Khanna Ex.R-10, who deposed that he is Regional Sales Manager of Lispo Total Kitchen Solution , Gurgaon. He joined Lispo Total Kitchen Solution, Gurgaon on 1.4.2010. He visited the resident of complainant Rajiv Kumar in May 2010 and checked all the material, fittings and submitted his OK report to the company which was duly signed and endorsed by the complainant. The total material fitted by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 at the kitchen of the complainant and his brother Deepak Bhatia was of M/s. Lispo Total Kitchen Solution. This witness produced one appointment letter Ex.R-11 dated 30.3.2010 . But when this witness was cross examined by the complainant/on behalf of complainant, this witness has stated that no deduction of PF was ever made by the company from his salary. He could not produce any document that he had worked for how much time with M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. He hs no employee code. He stated that he could produce the bank statement. No doubt this witness produced the bank statement Ex.DX but nowhere in this account statement , it has been written that this witness Ashish Khanna was getting salary from M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. Apart from this , this witness could not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he visited the house of the complainant or his brother Deepak Bhatia for inspection. No doubt this witness deposed in his cross examination that he visited the house of complainant for inspection in the month of November or December. When this witness was asked to produce the report which he had submitted to M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd regarding the OK report of the kitchen fittings of the complainant , which he has stated in his affidavit Ex.R-10 and that the said report was duly signed by the complainant and his brother. Then this witness stated that there was no such report regarding OK of the kitchen fittings of the complainant. This witness also admitted that any person who is an employee of the company, remains on the pay roll of the company. But he could not produce any pay roll of the company. This witness further stated that he cannot produce the employement certificate from the company. Whereas M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. Company has categorically stated vide certificate dated 29.12.2012 that Mr. Ashish Khanna son of Pardeep Khanna is/was not their employee since April 2010 as alleged by him. In order to confirm all this, this Forum ordered that representative of the opposite party No.3 be summoned, who shall visit the premises of the complainant and report about the kitchen fittings , fitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2 , at the premises of the complainant. Consequently Sh. Inder Singh was authorized by M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd to visit the premises of the complainant for inspection of the appliances fitted in the kitchen of the complainant and to make report. Resultantly Sh.Inder Singh son of Jagdish Chand designor of M/s. Lispo Kitchen Pvt.Ltd visited the premises of the complainant, verified and inspected the kitchen fittings and submitted his report Ex.C-28 vide which he submitted that accessories fitted in the kitchen of complainant is local made and not related to their company M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd. He further deposed that if someone places orders for the accessories of kitchen fittings of their company, then firstly their representative/designor visits the premises of the customer, then he prepares the design according to the situation of the premises and then same will be approved by their company and not by anybody else. No person from their company ever visited the premises of the complainant to take measurement of the kitchen . The fittings fitted in the kitchen of complainant is not made of Lispo India Pvt.Ltd or Lispo Total Kitchen Solution. The total accessories fitted by the opposite parties i.e. Dishrack, Grain Trolly, detergent rack, waste bin,Drawers, Carcases,appliances i.e. Chimney Hob and Doors are not made of their company i.e. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd or Lispo Total Kitchen Solution Pvt.Ltd. He further deposed that wooden shutters of their company are having serial number stamped because the same were imported by their company from Italy but the wooden shutter fitted in the kitchen of the complainant is not having any kind of serial number, stamp, etc.The carcases fitted are not of their company because there is no edging/taping of carcases which is done by machines at the time of manufacturing by their company. But the carcases fitted in the premises of the complainant's kitchen are edged by nails/local carpeting. He further deposed that he had been working with the company i.e. M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd for the last 5 years and at no point of time , opposite parties had placed any order for any kitchen accessories fittings of their company for the kitchen of the complainant. Lastly he concluded that kitchen fittings of the complainant are local made and not of the Lispo India Pvt.Ltd or M/s. Lispo Total Kitchen Solution. This witness was cross examined by the counsel for the opposite parties in details. In the cross examination even this witness has deposed that the material which was fitted in the internal side of the kitchen of the complainant was not prepared by their company. In the cross examination which was done by the counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 , this witness has categorically deposed that Ashish Khanna i.e. witness examined by the opposite parties allegedly from M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd, is not employee of their company. This witness has proved the certificate issued by Lispo India Pvt.Ltd dated 29.12.2012 vide which also the company has stated that Ashish Khanna was not the employee of the company after 2007. This witness also proved his report Ex.C-28. Not only this in order to remove all these ambugities , this Forum further vide order dated 11.7.2014 ordered that responsible official of opposite party No.3 be summoned alongwith relevant record to explain the following ambugities:-
Whether opposite parties No.1 & 2 were/are the authorized dealers/distributors of the products of opposite party No.3 i.e. Lispo company at the relevant time and if so, for which period they were the dealers/distributors of the products manufactured by opposite party No.3 Lispo company i.e. Kitchen fittings;
Whether the kitchen fittings at the premises of the complainant are of Lispo company or not ;
Whether witnesses Inder Singh designer of Lispo company and Ashish Khanna S/o Pardeep kumar Khanna were the employees/ representatives of Lispo company .
Resultantly the opposite parties sent their reply dated 20.10.2014 and sent their representative Sh. Khushal Pal, Designor , who produced letter dated 20.12.2014 from M/s. Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd in which M/s. Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd has given the following reply:-
M/s. White Marble and Le Creete (opposite parties No.1 & 2) were not authorized dealers/distributor of product of our company i.e. Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd at that time.
No. the kitchen fittings at the premises of the complainant are not of Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd. Our representative Inder Singh visited the spot and submits his report before your goodself.
Inder Singh Designer is employee of Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd and he has visited the complainant's premises as per directions of this Hon'ble Forum and submitted his report. As per submitted report and personal visit of Inder Singh that kitchen fittings used in the premises of the complainant are not suppliered by our company. Mr. Ashish Khanna son of Pardeep Kumar Khanna was not employee/representative of Lispo Kitchens Pvt.Ltd at any point of time.”
10. So from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not the authorized dealers of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd or M/s. Lispo Total Kitchen Solution, nor the opposite parties No.1 & 2 fitted the kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd at the premises of the complainant despite the fact that complainant has specially ordered for fitting of kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd though with some modifications and this fact has been admitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version as well as in their evidence. It stands fully proved on record that opposite parties No.1 & 2 instead of kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd fitted local made kitchen fittings at the premises of the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have alleged that they did not have complete kitchen fittings material of Lispo India Pvt Ltd available with them, so they got some material from Rudra Kitchen Pvt.Ltd., Phagwara. However, they submitted that these material were purchased from Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd., Phagwara in the name of the complainant himself and payments were made to them i.e. directly by the complainant to M/s. Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd., Phagwara. This fact was not disclosed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties before filing the present complaint. Moreover, it is not possible that the complainant shall purchase material in his own name from Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd ,Phagwara and then hand over to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 for kitchen fittings in their premises. Moreover, had the material of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd been purchased from Rudra Kitchens Pvt.Ltd, Phagwara and fitted in the kitchen of the complainant, the same should have come to the notice of opposite party No.3 M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd, whereas representative of Lispo India Pvt.Ltd have categorically stated that not even a single material of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd was fitted in the kitchen of the complainant. So this plea of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is not tenable. Therefore, certainly the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have committed deficiency of service qua the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not the authorized dealers of M/s. Lispo India Pvt. Ltd or its sister concern M/s. Lispo Total Kitchen Solution, so opposite parties No.1 & 2 are even not authorized to fix the kitchen fittings of M/s. Lispo India Pvt.Ltd or Lispo Total Kitchen Solution. So the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of the kitchen fittings they have charged from the complainant alongwith interest.
11. As regards the payment of kitchen fittings made by the complainant to opposite parties No.1 & 2 , the complainant has submitted that he had paid about Rs. 2,00,000/- to opposite parties No.1 & 2 regarding the kitchen fittings , but the complainant could not produce the entire bills which could prove that they paid about Rs. 2,00,000/- to the opposite parties. No doubt the complainant has produced invoices issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 but the complainant failed to prove on record that he paid about Rs. 2,00,000/- for the kitchen fittings at their premises to opposite parties No.1 & 2. However, opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version as well as in their evidence have admitted that complainant has received the kitchen fittings material from opposite parties No.1 & 2 worth Rs. 3,34,626/-, but they have paid only Rs. 3,05,000/- through three cheques to opposite parties No.1 & 2. As such opposite parties No.1 & 2 have admitted that complainant and his brother made payment of material of two kitchen fittings Rs. 3,05,000/- thereby complainant has paid Rs. 1,52,500/- to opposite parties No.1 & 2 and this fact has been admitted by opposite parties No.1 & 2.
12. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to return the amount of Rs. 1,52,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. However, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are entitled to take back the kitchen material fitted by them at the premises of the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
26.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
