BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 102 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution: 04.08.2017.

                                                          Date of Decision: 31.01.2019.

Santosh wife of Shri Sunil Dutt, resident of VPO Manheru, District Bhiwani, present resident of H. No. 2954, New Housing Board Colony, Sector-13, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus.

M/s Sandeep Glass House & Hardware, Murari Cinema Road, Bhiwani-127021, Mobile No. 9416732776 & 9996352180.

…...Opposite Party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Gaurav, Representative for the complainant.

                   Shri Sunil, Proprietor for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that her nephew Shri Gaurav has approached the OP for the Glass work for railing of her house and the rate was fixed as Glass Rs.70/- per Sq. Feet, Design Rs.30/- per Sq. Feet and Rs.25/- per hole in Glass.  It is alleged that some money has been given in advance.  It is further alleged that the OP has completed the glass work and told that total 56.25 Sq. Feet glass has been used, whereas on measuring total glass was found 42.77 Sq. Feet and the work of design has also been done in this glass.  It is further alleged that the OP has wrongly charged from the complainant for the work of design on 56.25 Sq. Feet glass and issued the bill No. 1491 dated 27.6.2017.  It is further alleged that the OP was requested to charge only for the work of design i.e. on 42.77 Sq. Feet glass, but to no effect.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency & negligence in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint. 

2.                 On notice, opposite party appeared and have filed contested written statement alleging therein that complainant is not the customer of the OP and she had not purchased any material from the OP shop and her nephew had purchased the material from the OP.  It is alleged that the glass was given, as demanded and bill was issued.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant has placed on record copy of bill dated 27.6.2017 as Annexure C1 in evidence and closed the evidence and lateron also placed on record ownership proof of Smt. Santosh i.e. copy of sale deed No. 6657 dated 20.10.2015 and copy of aadhaar card. 

4.                The OP has placed no evidence on the file. 

5.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.

                   The first question is whether the complainant falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, even if the said glass was purchased by her nephew and bill was issued in the name of her nephew.  The definition of ‘consumer’ as given in section 2(1)(d) is as follows:-

“2(1) (d)  "consumer" means any person who—

(i)   buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or”

7.                So, it is very much clear from the above definition that the user of the goods purchased by any person, does fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ and the same view was taken by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Bant Singh Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Revision Petition No. 2307 of 2011, decided on 17.10.2017”.  The complainant has placed on record the copy of Adhar Card and ownership proof i.e. copy of sale deed No.6657 dated 20.10.2015 to prove that complainant is resident of House No. 2954 and also owner of the House No. 2954 and glass work was done in her house.  So, it is clearly established on record that the complainant is consumer qua OP being “user”.

8.                After having gone through the material available on the file, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The complainant has successfully proved her case by placing on record copy of bill as Annexure C1.  On the other hand, the OP has failed to produce any documentary evidence to controvert the case of complainant.  From the bare perusal of the bill No.1491 dated 27.6.2017, Annexure C1, it is clearly established on record that the OP has charges excess amount from complainant i.e. Rs.1687/- for the design work on 56.25 Sq. Feet glass.  It is also clear from the perusal of bill that the OP has done the design work only on 42.82 Sq. Feet glass.  Thus, the OP has wrongly charged for the whole glass i.e. 56.25 Sq. Feet instead of 42.82 Sq. Feet glass, because the design work was done only on 42.82 Sq. Feet glass and this fact has not been denied by the opposite party in his written statement or while advancing final arguments.  So, the OP has charged Rs.403/- (56.25 – 42.82 = 13.43 x 30 = 402.90 or say Rs.403/-) extra from the complainant.  Hence, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

7.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OP is directed to: -

i.        To refund Rs.403/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 27.6.2017 till its realization.

ii.       To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, hardship & due to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and litigation charges. 

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i & ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 31.1.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 31.01.2019.       

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.