Delhi

East Delhi

CC/333/2015

SUDHIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKRAM KHARBANDA - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHRESPONDENTPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 333/15

Shri SUDHIR VARSHNEY,

S/O LATE SHRI HARISH CHAND,

R/O A-65, PRIYA DARSHNI VIHAR,

1.  

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

•  

 

Shri VIKRAM KHARBANDA,

PROPRIETOR OF CREATICA BUD,

C/O U-112, VIDHATA HOUSE,

III FLOOR,

NEAR LAXMI NAGAR METRO STATION,

VIKAS MARG,

1.  

 

                                                                                                                               ….Respondentponents

 

Date of Institution: 11.05.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 03.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 17.05.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Sudhir Varshney, the complainant against Shri Vikram Kharbanda, the respondent praying for directions to Respondent to return Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%  p.a., Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant wanted to install modular kitchen at his residence, for which quotation cum offer dated 01/12/2014 was sent by Respondent, who deals in providing services for installation of modular kitchen. The said quotation cum offer letter had specifications of material, quantity and brand name of the material to be used alongwith terms and conditions for installation. The total cost of the proposed modular kitchen was Rs.2,25,000/-. It is stated that as per terms and conditions, the complainant paid advance on 27/12/2017 and subsequently as and when demanded by Respondent. The complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- including Rs.25,000/- demanded by Respondent on account of tax and cartage. It is further alleged that Respondent failed to render services as promised, be it on quality aspect or on designing. The Respondent altered/reduced the agreed design without the consent of the complainant. Respondent had used inferior quality material and deviated from the size/measurement as specified in quotation. It is also stated that the installation was to be completed within 30 days from the date of commencement of the work which was 15/01/2015, which was pending till the filing of the present complaint. Despite several requests the Respondent did not remove the said defects for which complainant got legal notice dated 01/04/2015 issued. Complainant has annexed quotation dated 01/12/2014 from Respondent, photographs, visiting card, proof of payment, copy of ledger, description of fittings to be done by the Respondent, description of fittings to be returned, correspondence through E-mails, legal notice dated 01/04/2015 and proof of service.
3. The notice was issued to Respondent, but none appeared on their behalf. Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte.
4. Thereafter, the complainant filed his ex-parte evidence on record and reiterated the contents of the complaint and relied on Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/3-quotation sent by the Respondent through E-mail with two photographs, Ex. CW1/4 receipt showing payment amount of Rs.75,000/-, Ex. CW1/5 list of material delivered by the Respondent, Ex. CW1/6 receipt of total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- which includes earlier payment of Rs.75,000/-, Ex. CW1/7 list of material returned to Respondent, being defective, Ex. CW1/8 E-mails sent by the complainant to Respondent requesting for completion of work, Ex. CW1/9 copy of legal notice to Respondent, Ex. CW1/10 & Ex. CW1/11 postal receipts with respect to issuance of legal notice, Ex. CW1/12 & Ex. CW1/13 returned envelopes carrying legal notice, Ex. CW1/14 tracking report of legal notice and Ex. CW1/15 & Ex. CW1/16 legal notice sent through E-mail by the complainant to the Respondent.
5. We have heard the counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  As the Respondent chose not to appear, allegations made by complainant have remained unrebutted. Complainant has placed on record the quotation of Respondent which gives specification of the quantity and brand to be used in the fittings. The complainant has also proved that the payment was made in lieu of the installation of the kitchen. Estimation of expenses required for completion of the Modular Kitchen has been filed by the complainant which reveals that Rs.1,94,000/- will be the estimated cost for renovation/completion of the Modular Kitchen, which the Respondent had to complete. The complainant is also successful in proving that the Respondent had made material alteration in the specification quoted by him and has left assignment unfinished. Therefore, we hold Respondent responsible of deficiency in service and direct to refund Rs.1,94,000/-, as the estimated cost of completion/renovation. We also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, harassment and compensation, this shall also include the cost of litigation. If the said order is not complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order then Respondent shall be liable to pay 9% interest on Rs.2,19,000/- from the date of filing complaint till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER

 

                                            

                                                  (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                     PRESIDENT