Case No. 198/2022   

      IN THE MATTER OF

            Rajul Nursing Home through Dr. Anjula Bhargav, Sasni Gate, Aligarh                                            (Through Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Sharma)

                                           V/s

1. Tata Pravesh through its Managing Director R/o 43 j.N. road Kolkata (West Bengal)   

           (Through Advocate Gauri Saraswat)

2. M/s Surendra Kumar Ratan Kumar through its proprietor Surendra Kumar, Agra Road, Aligarh

  CORAM

              Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

             PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.   The Ops be directed to pay Rs.139000/ as the cost of six defective doors or replace the defective door.
2. Cost be complaint be awarded.

2. It is stated that the complainant is a nursing homes owned by Dr. Anjula Bhargarva who was in need of built doors. Op no.1 is a well-known for manufacturing built doors. Complainant put an order of 19 doors to op no.2, who is authorized dealer of Op no.1. It is the practice of the Ops that before installing the door a competent person will visit the premises for measurement of the door and there after they shall install the door. Op no.2 supplied 19 doors of the value Rs.399000/ as per invoice dated 27.3.2022 and it was the duties of ops to install the door. But the Ops supplies six defective doors out of which four doors were of wrong measurement and some how the complainant adjusted the defective doors but two doors were not adjustable in any situation which are lying useless. Complainant asked the OP no.1 and2 to return the defective doors but the OP no.2 refused. Complainant suffered the loss of the Rs.114000/ due to supply of defective door and also suffered loss of Rs.25000/ in adjustment and repairing of the walls of the building.
3. Op no.1 submitted in WS that the complainant a raised order for 19 doors for Rs.399000/ and the measurements and orientation of the door were noted on the sheet counter signed by the complainant which could not be install due to failure to execute civil work by the complainant in accordance with the orientation of the door provided in the measurement sheet. On 17.3.2022 the installation team made a pre installation visit to the premises to measure the walls opening. On 21.3.2022 14 doors were installed in the premises and on 10.4.2022 3 more doors were installed.
4. OP no.2 has not filed WS despite of sufficient services.
5. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  OP no.1 has also filed their affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings.

7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.

8. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

9. Complainant has stated that it is the practice of Ops that before installing the door a competent person will visit the premises for measurement of door and thereafter the doors will be installed. Op no.1 has also confirm the said practice in its WS where it was stated that a pre installation visit of the premises of the complainant was made by the installation team to measure the wall opening. Thus it was the obligation of the Ops to record the measurements correctly and supply the doors as per measurements recorded and the measurement sheet counter signed by the complainant is depended on the measurements made by the installation team of the ops. Thus it is evident that the Ops did not discharge their obligation as it was required and committed deficiency in service. We are of the opinion the complainant is entitled for cost of two doors which could not be adjusted at the premises.      

10. The question formulated above is decided in favor of complainant.

11.We hereby direct the Ops to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs.42000/ the cost of two doors to the complainant. with pendite lite and future interest @12% per annum  Ops also pay to the complainant Rs.10000/ as litigation expenses. On making payment by the Ops, the complainant shall return the two defective doors.

12. Ops shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.