Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/657/2020

Dr. Sawan Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spacewood Modern Living Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Loona Adv

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	657/2020
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	16.10.2023

 

                     

            

 

Dr.Sawan Kumar Verma aged about 40 years s/o Sh.Jagdish Verma,r/o H.No.54, Emaar MGF, Sector 106, Mohali.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  Spacewood Modern Living Furniture (Modular Kitchen), Basement and First Floor, SCO 117-118, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh

 

2.  Overseas Alliance (India), SCO 258, First Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

 

3.  Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.T-48, MIDC Hingna Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440016, M.No.71042 35968.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Manu Loona, Counsel for the complainant with complainant. Sh.I.P.S.Mangat, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2. None for OP No.3.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that being allured by the representations of the OPs, quality and warranty of 10 years to be provided by the OPs, the complainant agreed to prepare a customized modular kitchen from the OPs, which is combination of two products i.e. “HDHMR and Max” and paid Rs.20,000/- in advance and thereafter he received quotation from the OPs. The complainant paid the first installment on 08.01.2020 through transfer.  The table reflecting the brands of the products to be used for different parts of the kitchen in question is as below:-

Cabinets	18 mm melamine finish SUPERTUFF-HD-HMR cabinets with 0.8 mm matching PVC edge banding
Shutter:	18 mm glossy-premium range PVC membrance foil SUPERTUFF-HD-HMR AND MDF shutters.
Acces & Drw	Grass DWD-Germany and SS 304 or Germen Accessories as applicable.
Hinges	Blum & space max soft close hinges
Handle	Designer Handles –Group-3.

 

         The OPs took the exact and accurate measurement of the kitchen and accordingly a map was prepared to construct a customized modular kitchen in the house of the complainant. The OPs have also provided 3D prints of the modular kitchen depicting the colour and finish of the kitchen. The complainant further paid Rs.50000/- on 21.01.2020 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.03.2020 through transfer against receipts (Annexures C-6 & C-7). The kitchen agreed to be delivered within a time span 6 weeks from the date of first installment but they failed to do so.  The complainant made the full and final payment of Rs.1,51,389/- to the OPs through transfer against receipt 29.05.2020 (Annexure C-8). In all, the complainant paid Rs.4,71,389/- to the OPs for the kitchen. After few days the unassembled kitchen was delivered but to the utter dismay of the complainant, the material used was of substandard quality and was damaged at various places and had scratches over its surface at which he contacted the OPs who assured that the best quality material was used and in case any material is found to be of low quality or not as per promises made then the same shall be replaced within a warranty period of 10 years. It has further been pleaded that the labour/workers at the site were not provided with the requisite material for the proper and smooth installation of the kitchen, either the material delivered was found to be damaged or incomplete/unfinished/out of size and measurements for which he had to contact the Ops time and again to either replace the damaged/unfinished material and to send the requisite material to continue the installation work. Moreover the material was not as per the quotation, when he inquired from the labourers/workers working about their past experience in this field, he was shocked to learn that they were the freelancers and were not the employees of the OPs rather they had been hired on daily basis from the open market and they were engaged in this type of kitchen installation work by the OPs to which he objected and protested with the OPs but no effect. It has further been pleaded that the material delivered was not as per the quotations and had many defects like the shutters were having scratches or cuts, size were not as per the actual measurements. Aluminum shutters are not functioning properly and are made of low quality material in addition to it the boxes were ought to have glass slabs which were missing. Moreover at the time of finalizing the deal there were two tall units with two fixed and three removable shelves mentioned at Serial No. 11 and 26 = TMT-4519656-5S in the quotation shared but only single tall unit has been provided and when he inquired about the missing tall unit the OPs refused to provide the second one and also denied to refund or the deduction of the amount from the total amount payable moreover the above mentioned units were promised to be of make Blum Bi-Fold Mechanism but they provided the said units of some unknown brand thereby causing deficiency in service and leading to unfair trade practice by the OPs. It has further been pleaded that the pantry door was not provided and the drawers of pantry units are not properly installed as some clips are either damaged or having scratches, dents and chipped edges. It has further been pleaded that at the very outset when the initial design of the kitchen was being prepared by the OPs, had very well informed them that the size of the refrigerator is smaller as compared to the refrigerator shown in the 3D prints at which the representatives/executives of the Ops assured that they will create a provision for a double door fridge as shown in the 3D print but will definitely insert fillers to cover the vacant space which can be removed as and when required by the Complainant in future when they will buy a double door fridge as shown in the 3D picture but to the utter surprise of the Complainant nothing such like has been done by the Opposite Parties as all the promises made by the authorized representatives of the OPs were in the air and apart from this the wiring of the fridge unit is not covered and also the top ceiling area of the refrigerator unit is left open which was supposed to be covered as shown in the 3D Picture, giving it an incomplete look and making it look shabby/unfinished as well the same is not in the manner shown in 3D Prints. The pictures showing the actual condition of the kitchen are annexed herewith as Annexure C-9. It has further been pleaded that when the Complainant expressed strong dissatisfaction to the work done and the workmanship as well as the services provided by the OPs they did not pay any heed to it and left the Complainant with a kitchen full of poor quality accessories and scratches and cuts on the surface of the kitchen material in total unfinished condition.  Besides this, the OPs have not provided the hardcopy of the final bill was provided and after his requests, a soft copy was mailed having no mention of 10 years warranty.  The complainant also exchanged screen shots and whatapps with the representatives/salesman of the OPs in this regard but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.09.2020  but the same has also failed to yield any result.     Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund Rs.4,71,389/- with interest paid to the OPs, to refund cost of 1 tall unit with 2 fixed and 3 removable shelves mentioned at SrNo.11 and 26 of the quotation dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure C-2), compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

2.     After service of notice upon OPs 1 and 2, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to the preparation of the modular kitchen at the complainant’s site and the receipt of Rs.4,71,389/- from the complainant towards the kitchen has also been admitted. It has further been stated that OP No.2 completed the entire kitchen work as per demand and requirement of complainant and after full satisfaction he acknowledged the same, thereafter he had made full payment. Thereafter also after sales service was provided to the complainant and all minor issues were also rectified upto their satisfaction and the current up to date situation of the kitchen has easily seen from the photographs annexed along with as R2-1. It has further been stated that the complainant is not happy with the conscious choice made by him and is now trying to get a complete refund by way of the present complaint on the basis of these baseless and unsubstantiated claims. The complete work has been done as per the specification of the complainant and as per the 3D designs provided to the complainant. It has further been stated that the exact same quality of the material as per the specification was provided and the damage to the material as alleged by the complainant had been caused due to the fault of the complainant as a box containing glass panels was knocked over by the complainants when they were trying to open the boxes to check material delivered, whereas they had been specifically instructed to not open the packaging, which was to be opened only by the persons deployed by OP NO.2 for the assembly of the modular kitchen. None the less the OP No.2 still went over and beyond their commitment and got the broken glass panels replaced at their own expense. It has been denied that the material would be replaced within a warranty period of 10 years or is any such term mentioned either in the quotation issued to the complainant or in the final bill. It has further been stated that covid-19 pandemic, the most affected sectors were one's which depended upon manual laborers as all labourers left for their home town and were stuck there as movement was restricted. OP No 2 despite such setbacks managed to get the complete work of the complainant kitchen completed. It has further been stated that when they received information regarding the damaged panels, they only with an intention to provide a good service chose to get the damaged material replaced, however as the replacement panels had to come from Nagpur Maharashtra, which was in a complete lockdown and no transport of any vehicles was allowed throughout India, the replacement panels could only be delivered once the lockdown conditions imposed by the Govt. of India were relaxed. It has further been stated that 3D print was got designed by the complainant on his own and only as per his needs and specifications was the complete design finalized. The provision in the 3D design is for a side by side door Fridge and OP No.2 was only to provide the modular fitting. The appliances were to be bought by the complainant, and now if the complainant has chosen a fridge which is different from the one chosen in the 3D design, they cannot be held accountable for the same. The complete finish is to be done as per the 3D design finalized by the complainant and nowhere in the 3D design is there a provision for filling in the sides in case of a smaller fridge. It is physically impossible to make a side panel stand on its own without any support and the filling that the complainant is talking about would not be possible to stand on its own weight due to this. The top panel of the fridge is mandatory to be kept open to let the heat escape, else the fridge would not be able to provide cooling and there is even a risk of a fire being caused due to it. No such promise was ever made by OP No.2 to the complainant and they had completed the work as per the 3D design and specifications of the complainant. It has further been stated that the final bill was presented to the complainant after the completion of the work. 10 years warranty as alleged is no where provided. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     In its separate written version, OP No.3 pleaded that they have no concern with the complainant and OP No.2 who supplied the material to the complainant as per his demand, the quotation was prepared and the entire work of the modular kitchen i.e. site visit, preparation of 3D print, engagement of labour, installation and assembling of material etc. was done by OP No.2. It has further been stated that after full satisfaction, the complainant had acknowledged the same and thereafter he made the full payment to OP No.2. It has further been stated that they have provided the material of best quality for the satisfaction of OP No.2.  It has further been stated that there is no allegation qua them. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The complainant filed replication to the written version of OP No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record along with written submissions of the complainant.
7.     The main issue involved in the present case is whether there are shortcomings as alleged by the complainant in the modular kitchen or not.
8.     In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint.
9.     The facts with regard to the preparation of the modular kitchen by OPs No.1 and 2 and payment of Rs.4,71,389/- by the complainant to OPs No.1 and 2 have not been disputed between the parties.
10.     It is important to mention here that on the application of the complainant for appointment of the Local Commissioner, Sh.Kartik, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner vide order dated 23.12.2022 with directions that he will appoint a Interior Designer on his own level and he will pay the expenses thereof from the amount which was to be paid to him by the complainant and the Interior Designer will examine the kitchen which already stands installed at the residence of the complainant and they will submit the report by way of affidavit.
11.     In pursuance of the said order, after physical inspection of the kitchen in the presence of the parties and Sh.Raman Sharma, Interior Designer (the examiner), the Local Commissioner submitted his detailed report dated 12.01.2023 by way of affidavit.
12.     The relevant findings of the report dated 12.01.2023 of the Local Commissioner is detailed as under:-

“FINDINGS UNDER THE EXAMINATION:-

5. That initially we counted and checked all the equipments and material installed in the kitchen and comparing the estimated sheet attached as annexure C2 on page 45 with the said complaint, we found that

 

Sr.26	Tall Unit with 2 fixed & 3removable shelf	Missing
Sr.31	Short wall unit with howl Duo lift mechanism door open max 75 degree.	Missing
A	4 open cabinet	Extra
B	3 end panels	Extra

6. That we find nothing short as per the drawing and 3D print of the drawing enclosed in annexure C-4, page 47 to 52 of the complaint which was shown by the complainant to the interior designer through his mobile phone and there is no incomplete work.

7. That as per the examiner brands of all the material, all equipments are branded as mentioned in the complaint and same co-branded with same quality material if compared with the initial drawing and 30 maps of said kitchen, nothing less and no incomplete work has been found.

8.  That quality of all material, all are branded and of standard quality, there was no damage in the installed equipments some of minor alignment is required after using same kitchen from last 2 year approx.

9.  That certain marks of earlier wrong installation that the hole and drill after replacement with correct tool cannot be completely removed but can be furnished and cover-up, which is still pending

10. That the aluminum shutter is not in working condition and the brand thereof was not discussed between the parties earlier, besides one long unit is missing as mentioned above.

11. The view of the said kitchen is incomplete due to dedicated area for refrigerator, the complainant has a single door refrigerator and the area in the kitchen is dedicated for double door refrigerator, which is shown as unfinished work in the kitchen and that too not covered. After all, the correct fitting of the single door is essential

12. That very local and cheap material is used in sink cabinet aluminum sheet very rough and cleaner and liquid holder is already rusted.

    As per this investigation, we found that the said modular kitchen shows incomplete furnishing with work pending for refrigerator and sink area, also some appliances are still not installed and aluminum shelter is also not in working condition”.

13.     From the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner, it is clear that Tall Unit with 2 fixed & 3 removable shelves and Short wall unit with howl Duo lift mechanism door open max 75 degrees were found missing. The Local Commissioner found nothing short as per the drawing and 3D print of the drawing enclosed in Annexure C-4, at page 47 to 52 of the complaint which was shown by the complainant to the interior designer through his mobile phone and there is no incomplete work. Besides this, the Local Commissioner has opined that as per the examiner brands of all the material, all equipments are branded as mentioned in the complaint and same co-branded with same quality material if compared with the initial drawing and 30 maps of said kitchen, nothing less and no incomplete work has been found and the quality of all material, all are branded and of standard quality, there was no damage in the installed equipments some of minor alignment is required after using same kitchen from last 2 year approx.
14.      The Local Commissioner has further opined that certain marks of earlier wrong installation that the hole and drill after replacement with correct tool cannot be completely removed but can be furnished and cover-up, which is still pending. It was further opined that the aluminum shutter is not in working condition and the brand thereof was not discussed between the parties earlier, besides one long unit is missing. It was further opined that the view of the said kitchen is incomplete due to dedicated area for refrigerator, the complainant has a single door refrigerator and the area in the kitchen is dedicated for double door refrigerator, which is shown as unfinished work in the kitchen and that too not covered. After all, the correct fitting of the single door is essential. It was further opined that very local and cheap material is used in sink cabinet aluminum sheet very rough and cleaner and liquid holder is already rusted. It was further opined that the said modular kitchen shows incomplete furnishing with work pending for refrigerator and sink area, also some appliances are still not installed and aluminum shelter is also not in working condition.
15.     We have also perused the objections/reply filed by the OPs No.1 and 2 and the complainant to the report of the Local Commissioner, however, we find no justifiable reason to ignore the report of the Local Commissioner.
16.     Taking into the consideration the above facts and circumstances of the present case and report of the Local Commissioner, we are of the considered view that there are some shortcomings and deficiencies on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 while preparing the Modular Kitchen of the complainant. It would be just and proper, if the complainant is awarded a lump sum Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on account of the aforesaid shortcomings and deficiencies in the modular kitchen  and compensation for the mental agony and harassment being suffered by the complainant at the hands of OPs No.1 and 2 as well as litigation expenses. We order accordingly.
17.      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay a lump sum Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on account of the aforesaid shortcomings and deficiencies in the modular kitchen and compensation for the mental agony and harassment being suffered by the complainant at the hands of OPs No.1 and 2 as well as litigation expenses.
18.     This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest@ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of its actual realization to the complainant.
19.     However, the complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
20.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
21.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 16/10/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER