BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 01

Date of Institution : 3.1.2011

Date of Decision : 22.2.2011

Kulwant Singh aged about 40 years son of S. Sadhu Singh son of S. Deva Singh, resident of Mohalla Talab, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Tarsem Rolling Shutters, Near Punjab National Bank, Amritsar Road, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga, through its Prop.

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Lakhbinder Singh counsel for complainant.

Opposite party exparte.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for fixing defective and substandard shutter at the shop of the complainant situated near AXIS Bank, Circular Road, Faridkot and also for not issuing the bill for the same and for directing them to replace the shutter with the superior quality and also to issue the bill for the same and to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and deficiency in services besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is running a shop of diesel service under the name and style of Punjab Diesel Services, Faridkot. The shutter of the said shop of the complainant became defective/damaged and as such he contacted the opposite party for replacing the shutter of his shop. The opposite party came at Faridkot and removed the previous shutter and fixed a new shutter at the shop of the complainant on receiving a sum of Rs. 27,655/- as costs of the shutter on 20.12.2010. On the next day when the complainant tried to use the shutter of his shop it was found that the gear box of the shutter is not properly working and it is fitted of substandard quality by the opposite party. Besides this there is also a defect in the fitting of shutter and the same has not been properly working and is not closed properly and causing hindrances while closing and opening the same. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the defect in the shutter and also requested to remove the same but at first they kept the matter linger on and ultimately refused to redress the grievance of the complainant and refused to change the gear box of the shutter, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 3.1.2011 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. Despite service of summons nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party, so vide order dated 11.2.2011 the opposite party was proceeded against exparte.

5. The complainant wanted to lead evidence to prove his pleadings and tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurdeep Singh Ex.C-1, his own affidavit Ex.C-2, visiting card of opposite party Ex.C-3, bill estimate Ex.C-4, statement of Account No. 417010100048842 of AXIS Bank Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

7. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that for defect of shutter affixed by the opposite party and in its gear box the complainant is entitled to full replacement thereof with bill besides compensation and litigation expenses.

8. We have keenly considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant in the light of evidence on record. Vide his exparte evidence led in the form of duly sworn affidavit, complainant has proved his stand as taken by him in his complaint specifically stating that he got the shutter affixed form the opposite party at his shop by shelling out Rs. 27,655/- as its costs on 20.12.2010. However, when the complainant tried to use the shutter of his shop he found that the gear box of the shutter was not properly working. There was also defect in the fitting of the shutter as it was not properly working. Hindrance was felt while its opening and closing. Information by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the defect pointed out above met with flat refusal. So much so, opposite party did not issue the bill in this respect inspite of repeated request of the complainant. Gurdeep Singh deponent examined by way of affidavit Ex.C-1 has supported the complainant on the basis of his expertise of shutter making and shutter fitting by specifically stating that the shutter is not properly working and is substandard one. It cannot be opened and closed properly. As already pointed out above, despite notice to the opposite party none came on their behalf and as such statements of the complainant and Gurdeep Singh deponent examined by him in his support by way of affidavit Ex.C-1 have remained un-rebutted and un-assailed. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary the complaint filed by Kulwant Singh complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the opposite party to replace the substandard gear box of the shutter with a genuine one besides removing defects in the shutter and also to issue a bill for the charges received by them from the complainant in this respect. They are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 22.2.2011

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)