BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 64 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 03.03.2014.
Date of Decision:. 10.10.2017.
Rajeev Kaushik age 39 years, resident of Kaladhari Mandir, Mal Godam Road, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Vineet Airan, The Proprietor Sh. Bala Ji Fabricating and Trading Agency Ghosiyan Chowk, Bhiwani.
- Mohan Lal, Manager, Sh. Bala Ji Fabricating and Trading Agency Ghosiyan Chowk, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Rupesh Sharma, Adv. for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
This case has been remanded by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide order dated 8.9.2016 passed in Ist Appeal No.560 of 2016 titled ‘Rajeev Kaushik Vs. Vineet Airan’ etc. This case has been remanded to decide the case on merits after issuing notices to both the parties. Accordingly, notices were issued to both the parties.
2. The case of the complainant in brief, is that the he had entered into a contract with the Ops to make a S.S. gate of 304 grade in December 2012 for manufacture and deliver a new gate and Rs. 10000/- was received by the Ops for token money and promised to deliver the aforesaid gate within 15 days according to aforesaid contract. It is alleged that after 15 days, on the date of delivery, OP demanded 50 per cent advance and insisted on to take the said sum before delivery, then complainant paid 30000/- in cash to the respondent and a cheque of Rs. 14,980/- which is accordingly encashed by the respondent in this way, the respondent has received Rs. 54980/- from complainant as the budget of gate is Rs. 100000/-. It is alleged that on 01.09.2013 at 11.00 a.m. when complainant went to the OP, he clear cut denied the supply of goods and then complainant contacted with OP no. 2 for delivery of the goods, at last OP no. 2 delivered the gate on 09.09.2013. After delivery the complainant noticed that a manufacturing defect in the gate and requested the Ops to remove the same. Then OP no. 2 promised to remove the same and the complainant issued a cheque of balance amount of Rs. 37800/- which is accordingly encashed by OP on 10.09.2013 but to no avail. It is alleged that after waiting for one and half month the complainant got repaired the goods from other fabricator and complainant had to pay Rs. 3500/- for repairing cost. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
3. On appearance, OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the said gate was agreed to be delivered within 45 days and on dated 20.01.2013 the said gate
was delivered. It is submitted that on dated 20.01.2013 complainant issued a cheque no. 683467 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- to OP no. 1 but the same was returned by bank as there was overwriting on the date. It is submitted that several requests were made by the Ops but the complainant did not make the payment. It is submitted that the payment of railing pipes in a sum of Rs. 14,980/- and Rs. 200/- is still pending. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record affidavit RW1 and documents Annexure RA to RH, Annexure RJ to RN and Annexure RP to Annexure RT.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs.
7. Complainant in person reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that he placed an order for the supply of iron gate to the OP in December 2012 and also paid the advance money to the OP, but the OPs supplied the gate on 9.9.2013 after delay of 9 months. He submitted that there is manufacturing defect in the gate. He submitted that he requested the OPs several times to remove the defect in the gate but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. Ultimately, the complainant has got it repaired from other person and he has to spend Rs.3500/- on the repair of the iron gate, which was supplied by the OPs. He submitted that the receipt dated 25.10.2013 for Rs.3500/- for the repair of the iron gate of the complainant, by the Baba Welding Works, Bhiwani, is Annexure C-5, on the file. He also referred the photographs of the gate Annexure A5 and A6.
8. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the allegations made by the complainant against OPs are false and baseless. The complainant is habitual litigant and he referred the news reports of newspapers in support of his contention. He submitted that the iron gate in question was delivered by the OPs to the complainant on 20.1.2013 and the complainant did not pay the full cost of the iron gate to the OPs at the time of delivery of gate by the OPs to the complainant. He submitted that a sum of Rs.14,980/- is also standing due from the complainant on account of supply of railing to the complainant.
9. We have carefully examined the material on the file. The complainant has contended that no amount is due to the OPs as alleged by them and had issued a cheque of Rs.14,980/- to the OP which was encashed by the OP.
As per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a complaint by the consumer is maintainable before the Consumer Fora for the defects in goods or deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. The complainant has alleged that the iron gate was having the defects when it was delivered by the OPs to him. The complainant has contended that despite repeated requests the Ops failed to rectify the defects in the iron gate and he has got it repaired from another person by paying Rs.3500/-. The complainant has also produced the receipt dated 25.10.2013 Annexure-C5 issued by Baba Welding Works for the repair of the iron gate. The said contention of the complainant has not been rebutted by the OPs but they alleged that a sum of Rs.14,980/- is due from the complainant on account of supply of railings to the complainant. The said issue of outstanding amount as alleged by the OP is not triable by the Consumer Forum. The OPs shall be at liberty to take the recourse of the legal proceedings for their claim as per the provisions of law. Considering the facts of the case, we found that the OPs have failed to rectify the defects in the iron gate supplied by them and the complainant has to spend Rs.3500/- for the rectification of the defects in the iron gate. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the OPs. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant. The OPs have further directed to pay the said amount of award to the complainant by demand draft drawn in favour of the complainant and the same be sent on the address given by the complainant in the complaint by registered post, within 30 days from the passing of this order, otherwise, the OPs shall liable to pay the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of the payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10.10.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
