Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/171

Rakesh Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

wadhwa Carpet Emporium - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                  171 of  2018

Date of Institution :       26.10.2018

Date of Decision :           5.03.2019

Rakesh Khanna s/o of Gulzari Lal r/o House No.B-8/347, Ward No.7, Street Haqima Wali, Sethian Wala Mohalla, Faridkot District Faridkot Punjab.

.....Complainant

Versus

Wadhwa Carpet Emporium, Shop No.7229-30, Old Rohtak Road, Chowk Azad Market, Delhi, through its Partner/Proprietor.

..........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

             Sh Varinder Rakreja, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective PVC Flooring with new one as demanded by complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.

 

C. C. No.-171 of  2018

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in first week of October, 2018, agent of OP showed some samples of PVC Flooring Caleo to complainant and on assurance of agent for better quality and supply, complainant selected colour and design of some PVC Flooring CALEO, EX001 104.92 MTR at the rate of Rs.315/- and as per demand of Opposite Party, complainant deposited RS.39,000/-from his account to the account of OP through online transaction. Rs.33,049/-were charged as price of carpet and Rs,5,950.20 as IGST and bill no.2484 dated 10.10.2018was issued to complainant, but when complainant opened the packet, he came to know that quality of carpet supplied by OPs was not as per order given by complainant. OP supplied EX007 Model, which is also different in colour than the one selected by him and there is also doubt about the company as nothing is mentioned about Company over the item supplied by OP. It is further submitted that  at the time of booking the order, OP assured to bear transportation charges, but later on, same were also borne by complainant. Act of OP in not providing good quality of items as per demand of complaint, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant made several requests to OP through telephonic calls to redress his grievance, but all in vain as OP did not pay any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.10.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

C. C. No.-171 of  2018

4                                        On receipt of notice, OP filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they do not have agent operating their business in Punjab and even this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case. It is averred that complainant has concocted a false story and true facts are that complainant himself visited their showroom in Delhi for purchase of PVC Flooring. The goods sold are exactly of same colour and description as demanded by complainant. It is further averred that best course available for complainant was to refuse to take goods from the carrier to whom he paid transportation charges. He could have rejected the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, but complainant could not resort to this recourse as goods were purchased by complainant himself at their showroom. Allegations levelled by complainant are false and incorrect. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are refuted with prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence documents Ex OP-1 to OP-2, affidavit of  Pawan Wadhwa as Ex OP-3 and then, closed the same.

7                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

C. C. No.-171 of  2018

8                                                    The case of the complainant is that agent of OP showed some samples of PVC Flooring Caleo to complainant and on his assurance for providing better quality, complainant selected colour and design of some PVC Flooring CALEO, EX001 104.92 MTR at the rate of Rs.315/- and as per demand of Opposite Party, deposited Rs.39,000/-from his account to the account of OP through online transaction. Rs.33,049/- on account of price of carpet and Rs,5,950.20 as IGST and bill dated 10.10.2018 was issued to complainant, but when he opened the packet, he was surprised to see that quality of carpet supplied by OP was not as per order placed by him. OP supplied EX007 Model, which is also different in colour than the one selected by him and there is also doubt about the company as nothing is mentioned about Company over the item supplied by OP. At the time of booking the order, OP assured to bear transportation charges, but later on, same were also borne by complainant. Act of OP in not providing good quality of items as per his demand, amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the complaint. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complainant and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per OP, complainant has made false story of online purchase and asserted that no order was booked through any agent, rather complainant himself visited their showroom and selected PVC Flooring of his own choice. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                      It is observed that there is no denial to the fact that complainant purchased Floor carpets from OP. Price of carpet in question is also not disputed. Grievance of complainant is that OP provided him low quality carpet

C. C. No.-171 of  2018

and of different model and colour than the one selected by him and even transportations were also borne by complainant though at the time of booking OP assured to bear the same. Plea taken by OP is that complainant has made a false story of online purchase, rather he himself visited their showroom and selected the PVC Flooring of his own choice and the bill produced by complainant is totally manipulated one and is not original. To contradict the contention of ld counsel for OP, ld counsel for complainant placed on record bill dated 2484 dated 10.10.2018 Ex C-2. Careful perusal of this bill shows the GSTIN : 07AAAPW2155L1ZG, that clearly reveals the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number allotted to the dealer/opposite party. This bill also draws attention towards the Transport Name ‘Delhi Punjab Goods Carriers’ meaning thereby OP sent the article to complainant through transport system. Moreover, this bill also bears stamp of Wadhwa Carpet Emporium. If it is presumed that bill is not original one and is manipulated by complainant, then, it cannot be believed that complainant has procured the stamp of Wadhwa Carpet Emporium as it is not permissible for complainant to arrange the stamp of OP. On the contrary, OP has nothing to say in this regard.

10                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. Authenticity of bill Ex C-2 and photographs Ex C-4 is beyond any doubt. OP is liable for deficiency in service and have caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant by not providing PVC Floor Carpet as per demand of complainant. Action of OP in not paying any heed to the genuine requests of complainant by making replacement of carpet  supplied by them to the choice of complaint and as per his demand, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP is directed to replace the PVC Floor

C. C. No.-171 of  2018

Carpet of complainant with new one of same model and desired colour as ordered by complainant. Complainant is also directed to return the old PVC Flooring Carpet to OPs at the time of receiving the new one. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 5.03.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                          President