5BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.385 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 02.11.2020

      Date of Decision: 28.03.2023

Varinder Singh aged 55 years son of Harbhajan Singh resident of 31, Bank Enclave, Jalandhar also at House No.84C, Pyramid City, Amritsar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Sutlej International, NA-423 Hoshiarpur Road, Near PNB Bank,      Lamba Pind Chowk, Jalandhar through its Authorized       Signatory/Partner/Prop. etc.

2.       Sahil Sharma, Shop No.70, Dana Mandi, Gill Road, New Grain       Market, Ludhiana-144002.

3.       Amit Arora son of Krishan Arora resident of 813, Gillco Valley,       NA Kharar, SAS Nagar Mohali, Kharar, Ropar, Punjab-140301.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Ramit Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 to 3 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that in the year 2018, the complainant had purchased during the construction of his residential house at Amritsar thirteen tiles (compact Laminate Chocolate Fine) in fact against which the OPs had issued an invoice for eleven pieces for Rs.68,611.34/- on which Rs.110/- per sq. ft was spent as labour on the installation of said tiles. The afore stated tiles faded in the year 2019 which were duly replaced by the OPs owing to its warranty for ten years but all the tiles again faded in the year 2020 against a complaint lodged with the helpline number given warranty card. The complainant has again noticed the same defect in the product and now the helpline number of the OPs are not responding nor acknowledging the complaint of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the warranty certificate have been issued for 13 tiles and the bill has been issued for 11 tiles and in part 13 tiles were purchased hence opposite parties have resorted to unfair trade practice. As per the version of opposite parties to replace the tiles it is hereby stated that the replacing of tiles is a tedious job and can cause weakening of the structure. The OPs while providing the defective and faulty material has acted in the most callous and negligent manner and has further committed unfair trade practice and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  refund the amount of tiles of Rs.80,962/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, but despite service all the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to prove his respective version, counsel for the complainant has produced on the file his respective evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.                The complainant purchased thirteen tiles (compact Laminate Chocolate Fine) for his residential house at Amritsar in 2018. Price of the tiles is Rs.68,611.34/-. Invoice of the tiles is Ex.C-1 and Bank Statement is Ex.C-2 as per record. In the year 2019, tiles faded which were replaced by the OPs. In 2020, all the tiles again faded. As per warranty certificate Ex.C-3 issued by the OPs, the tiles have warranty period of ten years.

6.                On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un- challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.

7.                In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the tiles were replaced by the complainant earlier due to bad quality of the tiles. The replaced tiles have faded again. The complainant has lodged the complaint with the OP. The OPs did not respond. Then the complainant approached this Commission for refund the money. Notice was sent to the OPs but the OPs did not reply. It means he has nothing to say in this case. It is clear cut case of unfair trade practice, therefore the OPs are directed to refund the price of the tiles i.e. Rs.68,611.34/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the said tiles, till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

28.03.2023         Member                          Member           President