DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.210 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  17.03.2017                                                      Date of decision   :  03.12.2021

Dr. Ajay Gupta S/o Sh. Ravi Kumar C/o Sarvodya Multispeciality Hospital, Tau Devi Lal Chowk, Opp. Rahul Honda Showroom, Karnal, Haryana

…….Complainant

Versus

Sanyo Eco (India) Inc, # 5A, Gurjevan Vihar, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab-140603 through its Managing Director.

                                                      ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal,  Member

Present:    Shri Vinod Kumar Khunger vice Sh.Sahil Khunger counsel for the complainant.

                OP ex-parte

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present complaint is filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), on the ground that he wanted to install an elevator in the premises of  his hospital and accordingly the CC entered into a contract with the OP and the total value of the contract was Rs.12,00,000/-. The CC initially paid Rs. 3 lacs to the OP on 25.08.2015 through cheque and also made the civil work ready for installation of the elevator. It is alleged that the OP was asked to deliver the elevator as early as possible, but  the OP prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other.  The CC received a letter from the OP dated 15.06.2016 vide which the OP increased the total contract value to Rs. 13,20,000/- and promised to install the elevator  within 45 days. CC again paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-on 18.06.2016.   Allegation of the CC is that despite several requests and emails dated 05.08.2016 and 06.08.2016 the OP failed to honour its commitment. Even the inauguration of the hospital was extended by the CC. The CC again made another payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the OP on 02.11.2016. The actual grievance of the CC is that despite receiving Rs. 12,00,000/- by the OP from the CC, the OP did not install elevator at the site.

              Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the following reliefs:

1. OP be  directed to install and commission the elevator.

2.The OP be further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the CC and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost

2.     The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte.              

3.     The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.

4.     We, have heard Shri Vinod Kumar Khunger vice Sh.Sahil Khunger counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

5.      After perusal of the entire file, it is writ large that the evidence and the complaint of the CC is unrebutted and uncontested. The CC has leveled allegations on the OP that despite receiving  Rs.12,00,000/-, the OP has failed to install the elevator in his hospital till date. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant was specifically asked that whether till date the OP has installed the elevator or not  but he showed his inability to answer the same. Ld. counsel for the complainant disclosed that CC is in Karnal. He is not able to contact him. On perusal of the file, we found one legal notice given to the CC by Sh.Daljeet Singh Virk, Advocate which is showing that the OP is demanding the balance payment to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the CC. In the legal notice given by advocate Sh.Daljeet Singh Virk to the CC, it is admitted that the OP has received Rs. 12,00,000/- from the CC but the CC has not made the balance payment to the OP which is only Rs. 1,70,000/- even after completion of work. The notice is dated 01.12.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that even the legal notice sent by Sh.Daljeet Singh Virk, Advocate to the CC, the OP has admitted receipt of Rs. 12,00,000/- on different dates and it is mentioned that the OP has installed the said elevator as per the requirement of the CC.

6.             No doubt the OP is ex-parte but at the same time it was incumbent upon the CC to rebut the legal notice dated 01.12.2017 by filing cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence against the OP. Even in the affidavit filed by the CC, there is no denial of this legal notice dated 01.12.2017. Affidavit filed by the CC is nothing but a word to word repetition of the complaint filed by the CC. The CC was given sufficient time to adduce his evidence but he has failed to file any affidavit or document to prove that the contents of the legal notice are wrong and malafide. The Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act and the CC was supposed to rebut the document of the OP, in his affidavit  filed by the CC. During the course of arguments, this Commission  even offered to counsel for the CC to file an affidavit that till date the elevator was not installed on the premises of the CC, but he has failed to file such an affidavit or record his statement in this regard. We feel, that it is only a counter blast by the CC who probably does not want to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the OP, and has chosen this complaint.

7.             In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed.    File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

03.12.2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       I agree.

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member