DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.169 of 14

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 26.04.2014

                                              DATE OF ORDER: -29.04.2016

Mahabir Singh Yadav aged about 60 years son of Shri Nand Lal Singh Yadav, resident of village Parhladgarh, Bhiwani.

          ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

Shri Shyam Sales, Near Aara Road, Naya Bazar Bhiwani through its Proprietor Mahender Kumar son of Shri Banwari Lal, Mobile No. 9354137011.

………….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

 Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- Shri Om Parmar, Advocate, for complainant.

       Shri V.B. Malik, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

               In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he has approached the opposite party for preparing the wooden choket and windows etc. as per the size given in para no. 2 of the complaint.  But the OP did not supply the material according to the size as it was agreed between the complainant and the opposite party and the OP decreased the thickness of the wood and as such supplied the less quantity of the wood in the material.  It is further pleaded the OP did not supply the wood as per the agreement and also charged excess amount from the complainant.  The complainant paid Rs. 1,82,950/- to the opposite party, against which the opposite party issued bill for Rs. 87,412/-.  The complainant has claimed that the OP has cheated him to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and has claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lac. Hence this complaint.

2.                On appearance, OP filed written statement alleging therein that the OP only supplied the wood of good quality to the complainant against the bill.  It is submitted that the OP did not got prepared the choket and windows etc. as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.               In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Exhibit CW1/A, Exhibit CW2/A and Exhibit CW3/A & documents  Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence.

4.              On the other hand, counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence documents Mark R-1 and Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-13 and closed the evidence.

5.               We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.              Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the choket and windows were prepared by the OP and the OP issued the bill only for the wood.  He submitted that the choket and windows were not prepared by the OP according to the size as it was agreed between the complainant and the OP.  The material supplied by the OP was of inferior quality.  In support of his contention he referred the bill No. 14 dated 10.10.2013 Annexure C-10 issued for Rs. 87,412/- by the OP and the photographs Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9.

7.              Learned counsel for OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the OP only supplied the wood of good quality to the complainant against the bill Annexure C-10.  The OP did not got prepare the choket and windows etc. as alleged by the complainant. In support of his contention he relied on the photographs Annexure R-7 to Annexure R-9.

8.              In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record.  The OP has produced the photographs Annexure R-7 to Annexure R-9 to show the signboard affixed on the shop of the OP is for the sale of wood only and the OP is not doing the work of making choket and windows etc. To rebut the contention of the OP, the counsel for the complainant has contended that the said photographs have been prepared by the OP after filing of the present complaint by the complainant and referred the photographs which were taken by the complainant before the filing of the complaint showing the signboard affixed on the shop of the OP which mentions that the OP is preparing choket and windows etc. on the orders.  The contention of the OP that he is doing the business of only for the sale of goods is not tenable because the photographs produced by the complainant support the version of the complainant.  The signboard  affixed on the shop of the OP and as well as machine alongwith motor installed on the shop of the OP is visible in the photographs.  Therefore, the version of the OP cannot be accepted that he has only sold the wood to the complainant. We hold that OP supplied the choket & windows in question to the complainant.  Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award Rs. 25,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant against the OP.  The OP is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 29.04.2016.                                         (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                            President,  

                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                 Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)               

     Member.