Delhi

North East

CC/101/2014

Sh. Deepak Narang - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sigma Eleavator Co. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 101/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Deepak Narang S/o late Shri K.L.Narang R/o Property No.199, Vinobapuri Lajpatnagar-2nd, New Delhi-110024.		Complainant
		Versus
		Sigma Elevator Co. Through its Director Sh.S.K.Pandey   Having office At- 323/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Near Bhogal Flyover Delhi-110014.   Also At- Shop No. 1,Plot No.21, Maruti Arcade Sector-1, Kaparkhairane, Navi                 Mumbai-400709.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		14.03.2014
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		19.12.2017
			DATE OF DECISION:		08.01.2018

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he had contacted the OP for installation of Lift and its maintenance at his residence on the basis of representation released / advertised on E-directory/ online brochure by the OP as being specialist in Lift Installation, Lift Modernization and Lift Maintenance. Shri S.K.Pandey, the Director of the OP, vide letter              dated 17.01.2012 assured the complainant of reliability, quality, prompt delivery and service, no compromise with quality and customer satisfaction of paramount importance and their goodwill. Relying on the OPs strong determination and commitment to work, the complainant placed an order for installation of Lift in his premises on 18.01.2012 when the OP provided a quotation with term and condition to complainant which were accepted by the complainant and the agreement was entered into between the parties on the same day for a total price of contract of the Lift fixed at Rs. 6,60,000/- for supply and installation of “SIGMA” Passenger Lift having lifting capacity of 272 Kgs, four passengers (ground to fourth floor) and all payments to be made in advance through cheques / DD / cash in favour of the OP payable by the complainant. The complainant made the following payments as per terms and conditions to the OP :-         

1. First payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- paid vide cheque No. 696470 dated 18.01.2012 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.302.
2. Second payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid in cash dated 21.05.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.306.
3. Third payment of Rs. 21,000/- paid in cash dated 26.10.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.126.
4. Fourth payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid in cash dated 07.07.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.201.
5. Fifth payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid in cash dated                      04.09. 2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.315.
6. Sixth payment of Rs. 47,000/- paid in cash dated 15.10.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.308.
7. Seventh payment of Rs. 1,000/- paid in cash dated 15.10.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.309.
8. Eighth payment of Rs. 30,000/- paid in cash dated 12.11.2012 acknowledged by OP vide receipt No.002. Therefore, in total a payment between January 2012 to November 2012 of                      Rs. 6,29,000/- was made to the OP by the complainant which was more than 80% of the total consideration towards cost of Lift Installation i.e. Rs. 6,60,000/-.

 

However, the OP failed to complete process of installation of the Lift even after a lapse of more than 760 days (calculated from date of agreement till filing of the complaint). The complainant further submitted that the installed Lift is non functional and OP has failed to install Automatic Rescue Device (ARD) which was necessary in every Lift and the OP also has not handed over the lift with license certificate from the concerned Authority to the complainant despite several calls made by the complainant to the OP for the same. The complainant stated that OP had also undertaken to provide Guarantee as per following Guarantee:-

FIVE YEAR FREE MAINTENANCE: would be provided from the date of putting the lift in to commissioning as per Company’s terms and conditions, provided the buyer agrees that no third party will be allowed to interfere with the installation or its parts in any manner during the guarantee period. The equipment’s offered are covered by our usual guarantee for five year from the date of handling over the lift in good working condition and our liability under this guarantee include repair or replacement of all defective parts if any, which may prove faulty during this period including such parts as may be rendered inoperative by wear and tear but exclude such parts as may be rendered inoperative by vandalism. The Complainant submitted that he lost hope that the OP would provide the said guarantee and was facing lot of problem due to non functioning of lift in the property despite paying Rs. 6,29,000/- to the OP for lift installation and despite receiving amount OP not taking the matter seriously and trying to cheat and deceive the complainant by not providing complete installation process as well as maintenance as per its commitment with Licence Certificate from Government Authority, ARD installed, and in operational basis etc.  

The complainant further stated that he tried to contact the OP several times for completing the work but the OP avoided his calls, ignored his e-mails between June 2012 to February 2014 which shows that OP was not committed to provide License certificate with Automatic rescue device fitted as well as Guarantee. The complainant alleged that the OP has cheated the complainant and misappropriated the money paid by him and has also committed the breach of trust.

Thereafter complainant on seeing the conduct of OP served a legal notice dated 17.02.2014 to the OP through his counsel requesting to handover the lift in operational condition, with ARD installed, with certificate and provide Guarantee within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. The complainant also submitted to the OP through this legal notice that in failure to do so, the complainant shall have no other option to heir another company for making the lift operational with necessary certificate from authority at the cost and consequences of OP. The OP despite receiving the legal notice failed to adhere to the requests of the legal notice. The complainant lastly stated that after seeing the conduct and inaction of OP despite serving a legal notice, the complainant had no other option but to contact another lift installation and maintenance company namely “MANSHA ELEVATORS CO.”  for the operation, rectification, to provide License certificate, functioning of lift with ARD, Guarantee and other remaining work etc.  The said company “MANSHA ELEVATORS CO.” gave the quotation dated 10.03.2014 which is as under-

                                

1. Rectification according to PWD Licence Condition-Rs20,000/-
2. Installation of ARD (Automatic Rescue Device)      -Rs.55,000/-
3. Replacement of Formatter (DOOR Drive)                -Rs.18,000/-
4. Replacement of Main Mother Board (ADC.009)    -Rs.15,000/-
5. Annual Maintenance Charges @Rs 18,000 per annum (breakup herein below) for five years.                   –Rs.90,000/-

As agreed the complainant would have to pay AMC as under: -

First Service 10^th of March                 Rs. 3,000/-

Second Service 10^th of May               Rs. 6,000/-

Third Service 10^th of September       Rs. 3,000/-

Fourth Service 10^th of November     Rs. 6,000/-

 

 

The complainant averred that the OP is liable to reimburse the above incurred Rs. 1,98,000/-(Rs One Lac Ninety Eight Thousand) to the complainant.   The complainant also stated that the opposite party is having dishonest intention of not doing the work undertaken by it despite receiving 80% payment in the tune of Rs. 6,29,000/- from the Complainant and the same amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair business/trade practice trying to defeat lawful right of the complainant due to which the Complainant has suffered pecuniary damages in the tune of Rs. 1,98,000/-, immense mental tension and physical harassment due to malafide deficient act of the opposite party and that the OP cannot escape from its liability to compensate for loss, damages, mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant as prayed. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint and sought the following relief prayed for:-

1. Rs. 1,98,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%
2. Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

2. Notice was issued to OP and was returned unserved on Delhi address with report ‘left without address’ but was served on Mumbai address despite which it failed to appear and therefore was proceeded against Ex-parte on 21.10.2014.
3. The complainant has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit exhibiting the relevant documents in support of his claim / case wherein the complainant filed the receipts of payments made to Mansha Elevators between March 2014 till March 2017 viz Rs. 3,000/- paid in cash as token amount to Mansha Elevators for starting completion of lift work, Rs. 20,000/- to Mansha Elevators towards PWD Licence of rectification of lift, Rs. 55,000/- for installation of ARD,  Rs. 18,000/- towards Door Drive, Rs. 15,000/- for replacement of main motherboard and Rs. 54,000/- towards AMC @ 18,000/- p.a. from 2014 to 2017. Therefore the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/-(Rs One Lac  Sixty Eight Thousand)  to “MANSHA ELEVATORS CO.” for completion of remaining work left unfinished / undone by the opposite party. Written arguments were filed too by the complainant.
4. We have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully perused the case file alongwith documents placed on record therewith. It is evident that the OP had abruptly left the work of installation and operation of the lift unfinished midway and failed to honor its commitment to install ARD and handing over the lift with license certificate as also failed to provide five years free maintenance guarantee to the complainant for which reason, the complainant had to contact another lift installation and maintenance company (MANSHA ELEVATORS CO.) for the same which had given an estimate / quotation of Rs. 1,08,000/- apart from annual maintenance charges which were to be paid extra for five years @ 18,000/- p.a. which work if had been undertaken by the OP would have come with five years free maintenance till 2017. The complainant has placed on record invoices in support payments made to the OP as well as quotation by and payments made to Mansha Elevators co.
5. We find merit in the claim of the complainant who has successfully made out a case of deficiency in service against the OP and we hold the OP guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. To ascertain the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant by the OP, the computation is as hereunder on the basis of expenses incurred by the complainant towards payments made to Mansha Elevators:-

1. Rs. 3,000/-for repair and maintenance.
2. Rs. 20,000/- for rectification according to PWD Licence Condition
3. Rs. 55,000/- for installation of ARD (Automatic Rescue Device)
4. Rs. 18,000/- for replacement of Formatter (DOOR Drive)               
5. Rs. 15,000/- for replacement of Main Mother Board (ADC.009)
6. Rs. 57,000/- towards annual maintenance charges @ 18,000/- p.a. from 2014 to 2015, 2015 to 2016 and 2016 to 2017 since the lift was installed in 2014 by Mansha Elavators Co and made operational since then. From 2012 till 2014, the installation and operation of the lift was left undone / unfinished by the OP and therefore no AMC was either applicable nor payable during this period. Even otherwise if the work was completed by the OP in time i.e. 2012, the free five years maintenance guarantee would have been till 2017.

6. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization payable by OP to the complainant. We also direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant in the present case. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. 
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on (08.01.2018)

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member