Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/608/2022

Tushar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Gupta KKR

19 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/608/2022
Date of Institution	:	20.6.2022
Date of Decision	:	19/6/2024

 

Tushar Jindal S/o Sh. Parveen Kumar, aged about 30 years, Proprietor Imperial Engineers, R/o H. No. 670, Sector 10, Panchkula-134115.

Complainant

Versus

 

Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 34-35-36-37, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh- 160009, through its Authorized person/Managing Director.

2^nd  Address:-

PLOT No. 328, Patparganj, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110091,

... Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant.
	:	Sh. Chirag Suri, Advocate for OP alongwith Sh. Aman Sharma, site Engineer/representative of OP.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated complainant who intended to install modular kitchen and wardrobes for bed rooms of his residential house approached the OP for the said purpose.  The OPs had given estimate for the installation of kitchen and wardrobes to the tune of Rs.10,12,440/-. The OP had stipulated the complainant that for installation of the Modular kitchen and wardrobes the complainant is required to do the tiling work which was accordingly got completed by the complainant.  It was agreed upon by the OP that the installation of the kitchen as well as the wardrobes was to be done within 45 days  from the date of completion of tiling.  It is alleged that despite paying the entire cost for the installation of kitchen and wardrobes   the OP failed to install the same within stipulated period. It is alleged that after repeated requests the OP delivered the material in respect of kitchen and wardrobe on 6.11.2020 and 23.11.2020 respectively beyond the stipulated period and installed the kitchen and wardrobes inaccurately and poorly, which caused damage to the kitchen. The OP has not done the assigned work properly and even the complainant had to get the wardrobes handles at his own cost of Rs.15,000/- Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the OP had immediately completed the installation work in respect of material dispatched on 6.11.2020 and 23.11.2020 and the same  was duly received by the complainant without any objection. In fact the work at the site of the complainant was completed within a week after the delivery of the material received by the complainant. It is stated that there is no delay on the part of the Op in sending the material for kitchen and wardrobes. As per Final Order Form, the complainant had to pay 50% in advance and 50% balance amount before 10 working days before material dispatched.  As per payment schedule mentioned by the complainant in para No.5 of the complaint there is no delay on the part of the OP in dispatching the material to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant is that the work of installation of modular kitchen  and wardrobe  of rooms of his residential house could not be
    

completed by the Ops in time and the work done was not as per his satisfaction. It has also been alleged that the handles of the wardrobe had to be purchased by the complainant himself by spending additional amount of Rs.15,000/- and as such there is deficiency on the part of the OP.

7. After going through the documents on record it is abundantly clear  vide separate statement dated 18.8.2023 that the counsel for the OP  in the presence of counsel for complainant stated that the OP will complete the repair and reinstalling of the modular kitchen within 3 weeks from that day  and complainant has agreed  to the same. Unfortunately, after passing of this on 8.9.2023 the counsel for OP stated that it could not complete the repair and re-installing of the modular kitchen as it was not allowed by the complainant to enter the workers in his house. Subsequently on 13.12.2023 the counsel for OP has tendered some photographs before this Commission and stated that entire work, which was agreed upon by it before this Commission has already been completed.
8.   Thereafter various adjournment were sought by the parties for settlement. During oral arguments on 13.6.2024 none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and an application was filed on behalf of OPs for placing on record  the photographs of the complete work done by the OP. 
9. From the documents  placed on record by the OP, it is abundantly clear that  the following work has been done by it:-

1.   Inox pantry soft close changed.

2.   5 SS Chrome handles of kitchen cabinets has     been changed.

3.   Sink Cabinet’s both shutter’s has been     changed.

4.   Wardrobes Alignment issue has been resolved.

5.   Centre Hinges of Wardrobe has been changed.

 

10. Thus, from the above it is clear that the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by the OP during the pendency of the complaint and nothing is left. Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed being grievance of the complainant redressed. 
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Pending application, if any stands disposed off.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
19/6/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member