Delhi

East Delhi

CC/574/2013

SUKHMAL CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAL STEEL - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 574/13

Mr. SUKHMAL CHAND JAIN

S/O SHRI BIKKIMAL JAIN

R/O A-35, GALI NO. 3,

NEW KRISHNA NAGAR,

1. •  

 

Vs

 

 

M/S VISHAL STEEL PRODUCT

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

25, MAHILA COLONY, MAIN ROAD,

GANDHI NAGAR,

DELHI 110031

                                                                                                                            ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 09.07.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 28.09.2018

Judgment Passed on: 08.10.2018

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                            (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: MS. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by complainant, Shri Sukhmal Chand Jain  against, M/S Vishal Steel Product, with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had contacted OP to cover a built in Almirah in the wall. It was agreed that two Almirah measuring 8.6”X 8.2” at ground floor and 9.4”X 9” at the first floor with locks and handles @ Rs.282 per sq. feet in 18 to 20 gauge thickness shall be affixed by OP. It was settled that Rs.38,836/- shall be paid by the complainant. It has been stated by the complainant that on 04.02.2012 the supervisor of OP namely Shri Ram Kapoor inspected the site and took Rs.5,000/- as advance, thereby endorsing the same on his visiting card. Rs. 30,000/- were paid to Mr. Manish in the month of April 2012. Shri Ram Kapoor supervisor came to the house of the complainant with Almirah which was in three parts in contrary to as agreed to be of two parts. The same was objected to by the complainant but was convinced by the labour stating that they will come back and fix the Almirah in two parts. It has been further stated that despite several visits to the show room of OP the Almirah was neither replaced nor the amount of Rs.35,000/- was refunded. The complainant has stated that due to improper fixation of the Almirah steel cover they posed threat of injury to the children and members of the family of the complainant. Due to in action on the part of OP, the complainant feeling aggrieved has filed the present complaint with prayer for direction to OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.30,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment.

The complainant has annexed legal notice dated 22.03.2013 along with postal receipt, copy of kuccha receipt, visiting card acknowledging receipt of Rs.5,000/-, photographs of Almirah and area to be covered with the complaint.

3. OP filed their written statement upon service of the notice of the present complaint. We have taken several pleas such as the complainant himself had asked the representative of OP that he wanted the Almirah in three parts, which was in accordance with the specifications given by the complainant himself. It was submitted that the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- in all (initially Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) and after the installation of Almirah the complainant did not pay balance of Rs.8,836/- to the mechanic on the pretext that he will pay the balance at the shop of the OP. It was further submitted that OP had contacted the complainant to rectify the defect, if any, upon the service of the summons in the present complaint which was refused by the complainant. It was further submitted that OP never refused to refix the steel cover of Almirah in two parts but for that the Almirah had to be taken in the manufacturing unit of the OP on the condition that the complainant shall pay balance of Rs.8,836/-, the said request of the declined by the complainant. Rest of the contents of the complainant have been denied with prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.  
4. Rejoinder on behalf of the complainant to the written statement of OP was filed, wherein the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed and those of the written statement of the OP have been denied.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has got himself examined as CW-1 and Smt. Uma Devi, the land lady of the complainant for the period from July 2009 to July 2012 as CW-2. She has deposed on oath that the complainant had called some persons namely Shri Ram Kapoor to show the Almirah in the rented accommodation. She has also supported the claim and averments of the complainant.

Shri Khursheed was examined as CW-3 who has also reiterated the averments of the complaint pertaining to installation of Almirah in two parts, in his affidavit.

OP has got examined Shri Anmol Mehra partner of M/s Vishal Steel Products as BW-1 and Shri Ram Kapoor, authorized representative employee of OP as DW-2. They have also reiterated the contents of their written statement on oath.

6. We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for complainant and the counsel for OP and have gone through material placed on record. 

Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit without order to cost.

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