ORDER

21.12.2023

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the complainant is raising present consumer dispute against opposite parties who have not only misguided complainant but also have committed short supply of goods and deficiencies of service. It is stated that the facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant is a doctor by profession and is consumer qua opposite parties. It is further stated that complainant has been living with his family at the above mentioned address for many years having attained goodwill and reputed in the society as an ENT Specialist from Maulana Azad Medical College Delhi.
2. It is stated that complainant’s family decided to renovate new home on their plot at AK-20 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is further stated that complainant was looking for a decent exterior of house matching his status and in this regard OPs approached to the complainant with an offer to install HPL sheets of highest quality having ten years warranty.
3. It is stated that a quotation submitted by OP with complainant dated 19.11.2015 for installation of HPL sheets at the exterior of his house having total area 864 Sq. Ft. and cost would be charged @ 320 Sq. Ft. to Rs.2,76,480/-. The complainant induced and believed the representation of OP with regard to area and price of HPL sheets and their quality and agreed to get exterior work done. The OP received the total amount of Rs.2,70,000/- in installments by acknowledging receipt in their hand writing.
4. It is stated that after completion of installation work after 40 days inspite of 15 days than OP gave rough sketch of installed HPL sheets which measures approx 720 feet. It is further stated that complainant had taken expert advice of architect “Engineers Values” which measures total area 716.16 sq. ft. The complainant also approached OPs to issue appropriate invoice and warranty card but same was avoided on one pretext or the other.
5. It is stated that expert checked and disclosed that the installation of HPL sheets was done which is not according to quotation because area of 716.16 sq. ft has been done. The OPs were also under a duty to use aluminum section for installing HPL sheets, however they screwed the same on the wall without installing aluminum section on side of wall.
6. It is stated that complainant felt cheated that HPL sheets installed are not of good quality and 10 years warranty card was not given and installation is of local quality sheets. The area is also about 716 sq ft only than complainant approached OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.40,828/- which was received by making false representation and also requested to issue warranty card and invoice. It is further stated that complainant also approached OP for refund of Rs.2000 for civil work as mentioned in the quotation and Rs.1000 for extra padding charge for delay of work beyond 15 days.
7. It is stated that OP  flatly refused either to refund the excess amount or to provide warranty card than complainant lodged a complaint with SHO Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 07.02.2016 and enquiry has been pending. The complainant has suffered mental shock and agony due to short supply of goods as well as deficiency of service and assessed the compensation to the adequate amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the complainant is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- as wrong and intentional calculation made by OP of total area. The complainant is also entitled for legal advice and counsel fees of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant is seeking award of a total of  Rs.2,13,828/-.
8. OP1 and 2 file WS and taken preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to claim any amount against OPs. The present complaint is filed on the basis of concocted story to extort money and with malafide intentions.
9. It is stated that OP1 and 2 are running their business in the name and style of M/s Jaishree Enterprises, situated at Shop No.63, Vats Market, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 and are dealing in wooden products and adhesives. The complainant approached through some common sources and requested them to visit his house AK-20, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi as he intended to renovate the house, therefore, an estimate for installation of HPL sheets make “Rotolam” with ancillary work at his residence was given. The complainant also requested to visit and give estimate of whole work and a visit was made in the last week of October, 2015 and after negotiations an estimate of Rs.2,76,480/- was given on 19.11.2015 and both parties mutually agreed to the price and the work was started.
10. It is stated that OP2 made it very clear to complainant that the said estimate includes the complete area of HPL sheets which includes wastage of HPL sheets which occurs at the time of installation and as per estimate total number of HPL sheets were 27 and each sheet is 32 sq ft, therefore, the total area of sheets is 864 sq. ft and includes the wastage of sheets also. It is further stated that complainant consented to the same and requested OP2 to start the work. The OP2 on the request of complainant also do some extra work which was mutually agreed and charged a sum of Rs.20,480/- for the extra work as 2 extra HPL sheets were required. It is stated that as per contract the complainant is liable to pay the VAT extra directly to the manufacturer of the HPL sheets as complainant need warranty of HPL sheets for 10 years.
11. It is stated that all the terms were made clear to complainant to which complainant consented. It is further stated that complainant requested to the OP2 to minimize the tax liability and showed his interest to pay in cash, therefore, the payment was made by complainant in cash.
12. It is stated that during the whole work OP2 used 27 sheets admeasuring 32 sq. ft each sheet, later on complainant also requested for some additional work for which 2 more HPL sheets used, therefore, total work done was 29 sheets each measuring 32 sq. ft. which comes out to be 928 sq ft. It is further stated that OP2 completed the work as per contract and not only this the complainant requested to OP2 to use the wastage of HPL sheets at some other parts of his residence beyond 928 sq. ft in good faith. The OP did not charged any other amount for additional work which was beyond the terms of the contract.
13. It is stated that the waste and remaining HPL sheets were kept by complainant. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- on different occasions leaving behind a sum of Rs.26,960/- and amount of VAT i.e Rs.22,040/- which is directed to be paid to manufacturer and the complainant assured to the OP2 that complainant will pay the sum of Rs.26,960/- and amount of VAT i.e Rs.22,040/- soon and later on failed. It is further stated that OP2 paid a sum of Rs.1,76,320/- to M/s Roto Sales Corporation situated at Kirti Nagar, Delhi which includes only price of HPL sheets, however VAT charges are still payable by complainant.
14. It is stated that after completion of work, the complainant started pressurizing the OP2 to provide the warranty card of HPL sheets, however, complainant failed to pay the balance of Rs.26,960/- and VAT amount to manufacturer of HPL sheets, therefore,  OP2 is not in a position to obtain the warranty card from the manufacturer of the HPL sheets. The OP2 whenever requested to complainant to pay the balance amount the complainant evaded to pay but around last week of December 2015 OP2 was shocked when complainant called for meeting and when OP1 and 2 reached to his house then brother of complainant who alleged to be a builder started abusing  and said the work has been done at very high price and threatened the OP to refund their money as charged much higher than market price and further threatened to face the dire consequences in case money is not refunded as they have contacts in the local police station.
15. It is stated that OPs approached the complainant through its local market association of VATS market, Pitam Pura, Delhi and in the meeting, the whole members of Market Association were of the view that work was done as per contract and price of the same discounted one, therefore, complainant is liable to pay the balance amount. It is further stated that complainant filed a false and frivolous complaint with police station Shalimar Bagh and one investigating officer was appointed  who came to the conclusion that no offence is alleged by complainant is made out and closed the complaint.
16. It is stated that complainant and his brother abused the OPs in front of investigating officer. It is further stated that complainant harassed the OPs and now filed a complaint. It is stated that that the work done by OP2 is full of perfection, branded products of good quality and also did extra work in good faith beyond the terms of contract and complainant has attempted to defame the OPs in the market. It is further stated that the story of deficiency of service is false fictitious and present complaint filed with malafide intentions to extort money from the pockets of OP.
17. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed.
18. As per record complainant has not filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs.
19. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and relied on copy of quotation Ex.CW1/A, copy of amount of Rs.2,70,000/- Ex.CW1/B, rough sketch of plan and measurement of area Ex.CW1/C, copy of complaint dated 07.02.2016 to police station Ex.CW1/D and copy of certificate of architect dated 22.02.2016 Ex.CW1/E.
20. OP1 and 2 also filed their evidence by way of their separate affidavits. OP relied on copy of specification of HPL sheets make “Rotolam” Ex.DW11, copy of estimate of Rs.2,76,480/- Exc.CW1/A, rough sketch Ex.CW1/C, copy of complaint filed against complainant Ex.DW1/2 and copy of invoice  Ex.DW1/3.
21. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
22. We have heard complainant in person and Sh. M.K Gill counsel for OPs and perused the record.
23. The complainant admitted that after negotiations with OP1 and 2 a quotation dated 19.11.2015 Ex.CW1/A for installation of HPL sheets at exterior at the house of complainant received. The total area to be covered 864 sq ft. @ 320 per sq. ft total amounting to Rs.2,76,480/-. It also contains the terms and conditions and mode of payment. The complainant admitted that as per Ex.CW1/B the payments were made to OP1 and 2 Rs.1,00,000/- in advance on 01.11.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 04.11.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 19.11.2015, Rs.25,000/- on 15.12.2015, Rs.20,000/- on 25.12.2015 and Rs.25,000/- on 30.12.2015. Accordingly Rs.2,70,000/- paid by complainant. Although, the quotation mentioned against all total work Rs.2,76,480/-. The complainant alleged deficiency in services in the work and installation of HPL sheets, however, no photographs have been filed on record. A rough sketch has been filed which does not corroborate this fact, however, a rough sketch is with regard to the measurement taken of the work.
24. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant filed on record measurement report of the work executed by OP1 and 2 of one K.K Sharma and Associates dated 22.02.2016 according to which the total area where work has been executed is 716.16 sq. ft. However, complainant has not filed any affidavit of Sh. K.K Sharma and Associates or the Anish Sharma who prepared the report.
25. The complainant did not file rejoinder to the WS wherein OP1 and 2 had taken the stand that instead of 27 sheets they used 29 sheets. Further, there is no rebuttal to the fact that during the execution of the work there is wastage of sheets as they cut to the size. The purchase of total sheets used for execution of work is 29 each having 32 sq. ft. area. In the absence of corroboration or evidence that only 714 sq ft area has been executed by OP1 and 2 is not established on record. The complainant also not rebutted the fact as per terms and conditions that the VAT should be charged extra.It is admitted by complainant that all the payments were made in cash to OP1 and 2. The purchase of all 29 HPL sheets were also through cash payment. The complainant has not filed any bill of purchase and payment to OP1 and 2 of the HPL sheets.
26. The document shows that the VAT should be paid extra but complainant choose to make the payment through cash, therefore, there is no payment of VAT or any other tax. The clause with regard to warranty of 10 years, in case complainant made the payment including the VAT which is not done. It is further admitted by both the parties that prior filing of the complaint both filed police complaint against each other. The OP1 and 2 also involved the market association but the dispute cannot be resolved. The complainant has not disputed that although the agreement was to cover 864 sq. ft. but later on two additional sheets were also installed. The area of some sheets  always resulted in wastage of the some part of the sheets. The complainant made payment of Rs.2,70,000/-  against the quotation of Rs.2,76,480/-. The complainant also not paid VAT. It is also not brought on record by OP 1 and 2 that they installed the HPL sheets by using aluminum section or not as per terms of the agreement.
27. The facts established on record that complainant did not pay the payment of Rs.2,76,480/- as agreed. There is no documentary proof of payment of VAT which to be charged extra on the purchase of HPL sheets but parties failed to file photographs of the work executed and there is no dispute with regard to the payment of Rs.2,70,000/ by complainant in cash to OP 1 and 2. This dispute result in the present complaint case and earlier police complaints.
28. We are of the considered opinion that there is no material brought on record by the complainant to establish that complainant is entitled for Rs.2,13,828/-, however complainant is entitled for compensation for delay in execution of work although he also made the payment till December 2022. It established that OP1 and 2 were not provided efficient services as per agreed terms, hence we grant compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant which includes the litigation charges also. In case OP 1 and 2 to pay within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order than OP 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the above said amount alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. The complaint is decided accordingly.
29. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  21.12.2023.

    SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER