Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 609
Instituted on : 23.12.2020
Decided on : 14.03.2023
Joginder age-47 years son of Sh. Raghbir resident of Plot No. 40, Devi Vihar, Old Mohan Spinning Mill, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Shree Shyam Plywood & Laminates Head Office-603: The Ambience Court, Plot No. 12, Sector-19-D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India-PIN-400705.
- Shree Shyam Plywood & Laminates, SCF-48, HUDA Complex, Rohtak(Haryana), Pin-124001
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 and 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that opposite party no. 1 deals in Laminate Sheets/sunmica etc. having an outlet/shop and is also authorized dealer of opposite party no. 1 at Rohtak. It is further submitted that complainant purchased the following items:
(i) Laminate Sheet GL-865-11 Pcs
(ii) Laminate Sheet GL-864-5 Pcs
(iii) Laminate Sheet WG-859- 9 Pcs from the opposite party no. 2 vide invoice No. 7 dated 30.05.2020 amounting to Rs.20,060/-. The complainant used the said items for finishing doors, windows, almirahs etc. but regretfully the items supplied by the opposite party No. 2 were of very inferior quality. Their colour faded away tremendously which destroyed the whole decoration of shining of the furniture over which these were applied/got affixed. It is further submitted that complainant informed the opposite party No. 2 about the defective material supplied by him and requested him to take curative steps but the opposite party No. 2 did not pay any attention to the request of the complainant. After repeated requests of the complainant, in the month of August, 2020 the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and after inspection of the furniture/sunmica took the pieces/samples of the faded/shabby looking sunmica, assured the complainant to compensate him. But they failed to do so. Consequently, the complainant had to engage two labourers/carpenters for setting the used material right and thus incurred and suffered a total loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-, unnecessarily and without any fault on his part. But due to cheating on the part of the opposite party No. 1 in supplying the extremely inferior quality material, the complainant had suffered financial loss. Complainant also hired the services of an expert Arab Kumar proprietor and also served a legal notice dated 30.07.2020 through his counsel but no action was taken by the respondents. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rs. Two Lakh only) on account of loss suffered by him alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date as its becomes due till the date of it’s actual realization of the whole amount, also to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no. 1 through registered post not received back. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of OP No. 1. Track report of his notice was shown that Item Delivery Confirmed. As such, OP No. 1 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2021 of this Commission. Sh. Saurabh Goyal, appeared on behalf of OP No. 2 on 30.11.2021. Reply not filed by OP No. 2 and he had failed to appear before the Commission. As such, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.05.2022 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex. CW-1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the Laminate sheets for Rs.20060/- from the opposite party No.2 on dated 30.05.2020, as is proved from the bill Ex.C2. It is also not disputed that complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties regarding the poor quality of items sold by the opposite parties and sought compensation from the respondents. As per the inspection report dated 22.10.2020 issued by Sh. Arab Kumar Proprietor of M/s Lal Chand Rakesh Kumar , Wooden material supplier, he inspected all the articles/furniture items on which sunmica/plywood was got pasted and found that the finishing, shining as well as the colour of sunmica had faded away much giving a shabby looking as if it was got pasted almost twenty years back. It was all due to the reason of sunmica being extremely of poor and sub-standard quality. Complainant has also placed on record copies of photographs Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 to prove the fact that the sunmica supplied by the opposite parties was of poor quality. On the other hand opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding supply of poor quality of plywood stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and such opposite parties are liable to refund the price of sunmica purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties vide bill Ex.C2.
6. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.20060/-(Rupees twenty thousand and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.12.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.03.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
