Haryana

Panchkula

CC/176/2019

SH.JITENDER SINGH KUSHWAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARANPUR IMPEX. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHENDRA PAL

12 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	176 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.08.2021

 

Jitender Singh Kushwah resident of House no.C-6, HSIIDC Apartment, Sector-14, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                        ….Complainant 

                                                                        Versus

1. Saharanpur Impex, through proprietor Sh. Atif son of Sh. Nadeem Akhtar Sheopuri Mandi, near Pul Kambohan, Saharanpur-247001 U.P.
2. Saharanpur Impex, through proprietor Shri Nadeem Akhtar Sheopuri Mandi, near Pul Kambohan, Saharanpur-247001, U.P.
3. Jain Tempo Transport Co. Ambala Road, Opp. I.B.P.-Petrol Pump, Saharanpur U.P, 247001.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Shri Mahender Pal, Advocate for the complainant.

                           None for the OPs No.1 and 2 (evidence closed by this                                 Commission vide order dated 16.03.2021).

                           OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated 30.04.2019.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant came into the contact of the persons at Panchkula who disclosed their names as Atif son of Nadeem Akhtar and Nadeem Akhtar who are running their shop for manufacturing of wooden furniture at Saharanpur. After a look at the catalogue shown by them, the complainant placed work order dated 20.10.2018 to prepare the following items, the work order is in the handwriting of respondent no.1 and 2:-

1.      Dinning table with 6 chair N/W

2.      Stool SquirKushan

3.      Bed with box + side stool P/W

4.      Almirahplay 60”

5.      Sofa 3+1+1 with table N/W

6.      Shoe Rack 36” plywood

 

         Complainant placed an order on 20.10.2018 estimated value Rs.1,91,000/- regarding supply of furniture which was agreed by respondents to formulate and supply to complainant at his address within period of two months and therefore, complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- out of which 1,50,000/- through IMPS were transferred to OP No.1’s account and Rs.30,000/- were paid in cash. Respondents engaged Jain Tempo Transport Co. for the transportation of furniture to complainant’s residence through Bill No.773 dated 08.12.2018 for Rs.5,320/-. The wooden furniture is of so poor quality which is not acceptable rather OPs No.1 & 2 have manipulated the transportation without complainant’s consent or inspection, whereas it was the clear understanding that at the time of finishing of the furniture complainant’s consent would be taken and those agreeable items will be supplied against the payment of advance i.e. Rs.1,80,000/-. Ops supplied furniture vide invoice No.10 dated 08.12.2018 through vehicle No.UP11AJ2852 from Saharanpur to Panchkula at complainant’s residence. Cost of furniture has been valued at Rs.42,000/- on which Ops charged IGST @18% and so Ops had charged another Rs.7,560/- as IGST, but the hand note on the invoice placed in the bottom left, it is mentioned that goods are move hold goods which is not for sale. On perusal of invoice it has been found Ops have supplied the old move hold goods which cannot be considered as sale. Therefore, charges against IGST cannot be legally charged/levied. The transportation of the old furniture which was not agreed by complainant through Jain Tempo Transport Co. is another clever activity because the delivery particulars mentioned in the Bill No.773 dated 08.12.2018 are mentioned wood carving handicraft and these items are not at all acceptable because which were not ordered by the complainant. Complainant approached many of the times on mobile to Shri Atif and Shri Nadeem Akhtar, but they have not responded rather it was found totally irresponsible to settle the issue. Counsel of the complainant issued legal notice dated 17.12.2018 to the OP and 16.01.2019 and 11.02.2019 because the Ops No.1 and 2 were giving only assurances to provide the new furniture but it was found totally false and commitment has not been completed by them. Due to the acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notices OPs No.1& 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, not coming to this Commission with clean hands, territorial jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that firm named Saharanpur Impex is owned by Nadeem Akhtar and he is the only proprietor of the firm and OP No.1 has no concern with the firm of the OP No.2. OPs No.1 and 2 denied that ever came in contact with the complainant at Panchkula or at any other place. The complainant placed the order for the furniture on 20.10.2018 at Saharanpur. Complainant came to Saharanpur at the work place of the OPs and placed order for dining table with six chairs, stool, box bed, almirah, sofa centre table, shoe rack, after seeing the quality of the wood workmanship, finishing, polish and textile of the ready samples of the furniture. Total price of the furniture was calculated as Rs.1,91,000/-. After the negotiation the price was settled as Rs.1,80,000/- and the OPs had to supply the furniture within two months as per agreement. The complainant had placed the order after fully satisfying himself regarding the quality, finishing, material etc. of furniture. Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 23.10.2018 and after that the complainant came to Saharanpur on 24.11.2018 and inspected the un-finished furniture articles and paid Rs.30,000/- cash to the OPs and ordered the OPs to finish the furniture as ordered by the complainant and on 07.12.2018 the complainant transferred Rs.50,000/- in the account of the OPs and rest of the amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred  by the complainant in the OP account. The best quality of furniture was fabricated from quality wood fine textile cloth and material was used by the OP in the making of the furniture. Complainant visited the showroom of the OPs number of times in order to inspect the condition which the complainant had ordered on 20.10.2018. Complainant came to the showroom of the OPs and inspected the furniture and asked for the issuance of bill. OPs issued the bill as per the instructions of the complainant. Complainant after satisfying with the furniture make the payment and engaged the transporter for carrying the furniture at his place of residence. Thus, the OPs delivered the furniture to the OPs in a perfect condition and after the consent of the complainant. The bill of the furniture was prepared as per the directions and instructions of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant regarding supplying of the old move hold goods or old furniture of poor quality is false, baseless and vexations. The furniture was delivered as order by the complainant and the same was delivered after the inspection and approval of the complainant and the same was also received by the complainant without any complaint or protest of any kind at the showroom of the OPs at Saharanpur. Further denying rest of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.               Notice was issued to the OP No.3 through registered post (vide registered post No.RH37389408IN on 28.03.2019 to OP No.3, which was not received back either served or un-served despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non-appearance of OP No.3, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 30.04.2019.

4.               To prove the case of the complainant, Ld. Counsel for the Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand OPs No.1 and 2 were given sufficient opportunities to lead their evidence, but instead of leading evidence, OPs No.1 and 2 preferred not to appear before this Commission and vide order dated 16.03.2021, passed by this Commission, opportunity to lead evidence by OPs No.1 and 2 was closed.

5.               We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record and written arguments/synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully and minutely.

6.               Evidently, the complainant had received 6 items of furniture from OPs No.1 and 2 at his residence through vehicle No.UP11AJ2852 as per Annexure C-1 on 08.12.2018. The payment of Rs.1,80,000/- made by the complainant on several dates to OPs No.1 and 2 is also evident. The work order dated 20.10.2018, qua the supply of 6 items of furniture given by the complainant to OPs No.1 and 2 also cannot be doubted. The gist of the grievances of the complainant is that the items of furniture as supplied by OPs No.1 and 2 vide memo Annexure C-1 were of inferior and sub-standard quality and that OPs No.1 and 2 sent the furniture items without any prior inspection and approval of the complainant. It is submitted that the delivered furniture items did not conform to the quality as promised. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant while pointing out the deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 invited our attention towards bill Annexure C-1 wherein a note has been mentioned as ‘move hold goods not for sale’ and the amount on the same has been mentioned as Rs.42,000/-.

7.               OPs No.1 and 2 has contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections. It has been stated that this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. This objection is rejected in view of the fact that admittedly the furniture items had been delivered at the residence of the complainant which fall within the territorial jurisdiction.

8.               On merits, it is stated that the complainant visited Saharanpur on 24.11.2018 and inspected the un-finished items. It is submitted that best quality of furniture was fabricated from wood of good quality and fine textile clothes and material was used by the OP in making the furniture and the complainant inspected the showroom of OPs on 08.12.2018 and the furniture items were delivered only after his verification and approval. It is submitted that there was no deficiencies on the part of OPs.

9.               At this stage, it is worth mentioning here that the OPs No.1 and 2 have adduced no documentary evidence in support of their contentions. It is well settled legal preposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

10.             On the other hand the complainant has corroborated and substantiated his version with regard to inferior and sub- standard quality of furniture by his affidavit as well as Annexure C-4. Further, we find force in the contention of the complainant from the recital contained in bill Annexure C-1 issued by Ops No.1 and 2, wherein the delivered furniture items has been described as moved hold goods not for sale and the price on the same has been mentioned as Rs.42,000/-. Though the OPs No.1 and 2 has claimed that the bill Annexure C-1 has been prepared at the instance of the complainant, but the contention of the OP is not believable. Moreover, the unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 is apparent on the face of the record as per Tax Invoice Annexure C-1, wherein delivered items had been described as “not for sale”. Further, tax invoice Annexure C-1 has been prepared showing the less amount i.e. Rs.42,000/- in place of Rs.1,80,000/-.

11.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no doubt in any manner with regard to the deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 while delivering services to the complainant, for which they are liable to compensate the complainant jointly and severally. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.

12.             Now coming to the relief, it is found that the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.1,80,000/-, which  had been paid  by him to Ops No.1 and 2. In our opinion, it would meet the end of justice if the OPs No.1 and 2 are ordered to make the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- with a direction to lift the furniture items from the residence of the complainant at their own expenses and responsibility.

13.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1.      That the OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant. They are also directed to lift the furniture items in question from the residence of the complainant at their own expenses and responsibility.

2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation.

 

14.             The OPs No.1 & 2  shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which  the complainant shall be entitled to the interest @6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:12.08.2021

 

Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal        

           Member                      Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                  Satpal                                   

President