BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.103 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 04.03.2021

      Date of Decision: 29.01.2024

Surjit Singh Mauji son of Kesar Singh resident of House No.111, Rose Park, Gulab Devi Road, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Wudmen Enterprises, 50, Gobind Nagar, Industrial Area,         Jalandhar city through its Partners Charanjit Singh and    Kulwinder Singh.

2.       Charanjit Singh, Partner Wudmen Enterprises, 50, Gobind Nagar,     Industrial Area, Jalandhar.

3.       Kulwinder Singh, Partner Wudmen Enterprises, 50, Gobind    Nagar, Industrial Area, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. A. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant contacted the OPs in the month of July 2019 for the furnishing of Kitchen on the ground floor of his House No. 111, Rose Park, Gulab Devi Road, Jalandhar and the OPs gave the quotations to the complainant to do the work and detailed their branded fitments. As per quotations submitted by the OPs, the complainant agreed to get the work done from the respondents. The respondents started the work on 27.07.2019 and thereafter during the work, the Covid-19 Pandemic spread and the work could not be completed for this reason. The respondents started the work again in the month of December 2020, and during this period, the OPs hatched a conspiracy in league and connivance with each other and the fitments which are installed in the kitchen of the complainant, are not as per quotations submitted by the respondents. At the time of oral agreement dated 27-07-2019, the respondents No.2 & 3 also assured the complainant that the fitments installed by them will remain under guarantee for 15 years. The OPs had agreed that they will use the fitments of HETTICH Company and they will charge as per company rates for the fitments as per quotations. The total amount payable by the complainant to the respondents was Rs.2,56,000/- on completion of work as per agreement, out of which, the complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the OPs; detailed as Rs.10,000/- in cash as advance on 31.07.2019, Rs.1,50,000/- on 01.08.2019 through cheque No.045995 dated 1-8-2019 drawn over Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar in favour of OP No.1, Rs. 70,000/- on 30.08.2019 through NEFT, Rs.20,000/- in cash on 05.02.2020. The OPs No.2 & 3 who are the partners of respondent No.1, are very clever persons and uses the fitments of local brand inspite of HETTICH company as per agreement. The fitments which are installed by OPs No.2 & 3 in the kitchen of the complainant are of local brand. Dish-rack, handles of windows, corner- catchers, Pull-out channels, dustbins etc. etc. all these things are used by the respondents of local brand and the kitchen is still incomplete. The respondents knowingly, intentionally and deliberately are harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant submitted his request to the respondents through WhatsApp messages on 22.09.2020, 31.10.2020, 11.01.2021 and 18.01.2021 to do their work as per agreement and as per quotations submitted by the respondents but the respondents did not reply. The respondents have knowingly and intentionally cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- by charging amount for the fitment of HETTICH company while the respondents used the material of local brand. Even after sending the WhatsApp messages to the respondents, the complainant contacted the OPs No.2 & 3 and requested them to install the fitments as per quotations submitted by them and as per oral agreement between the parties, and to complete the remaining work, but the OPs No.2 & 3 knowingly and intentionally refused to do the work as per the agreement between the parties, but the OPs have not paid any attention to the genuine requests of the complainant. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has suffered agony and harassment both mentally and physically at the hands of the respondents due to the above said wrongful acts of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to install the above said fitments of HETTICH company as per oral agreement between the parties in place of local brand which has been installed by the OPs, and in case of failure of the OPs, then the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which has been paid to them by the complainant. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an utter abuse of process of law and deserves to be out rightly rejected in as much as the complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts from this Commission. It is further averred that the complainant has concealed from this Commission about the bills/invoices to tune the of Rs.2,65,189.00, vide which he has purchased the material and framed a concocted story of oral agreement dated: 27-07-2019 to mislead this Commission. The complainant is himself in arrears of Rs.35,189.00 towards the aforesaid bills/invoices regarding which the answering OPs are going to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. It is further averred that the entire pleadings in complaint are concocted story based on imagination without any concrete base. There is no document on record which establishes that the complainant is a consumer of answering OPs. The documents produced by the complainant are forged and fabricated ones and Ex.C-1 is not the bill/invoice or receipt and hence the same can't be admissible in evidence. It is further averred that the complainant, in order to avoid his liability of Rs.39,189/- towards the answering OP has initated a present false litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant contacted the OPs for furnishing of Kitchen on the ground floor of his house and it is also admitted that Rs.2,30,000/- were paid by the complainant and it is also admitted that the work for furnishing the Kitchen was started by the OPs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

 3.               Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant contacted the OPs for furnishing of Kitchen on the ground floor of his house. The complainant has relied upon the quotation given by the OP for completion of the work and the complainant has alleged that he agreed for the said quotation and he was ready to get the work done from the OPs as per the quotation Ex.C-1. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 27.07.2019, the OP started the work as per the quotation Ex.C-1, whereas the OP has denied that Ex.C-1 was the quotation which was accepted by the complainant. It has been alleged by the OP that there were many number of quotations given to the complainant and Ex.C-1 was one of those quotations, but none of the quotation was finalized nor any consensus was made between the parties. The complainant has alleged that Rs.2,50,000/- were paid to the OP, whereas the OP has denied the receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- rather he has admitted that Rs.2,30,000/- were paid by the complainant. The OP has alleged that the complainant himself selected the brand to be used for completion of Kitchen, which was purchased by him vide Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-6 for totaling Rs.2,65,189/-. No guarantee was agreed as alleged by the complainant.

7.                The contention of the OP that no quotation was finalized, and Ex.C-1 was denied by the OP, but this contention of the OP is not tenable. The OP has alleged that no quotation was finalized, but once no quotation was finalized, no work for furnishing the Kitchen could have been started. Admittedly, the work for furnishing the Kitchen was started by the OPs and as per the contention of the OP, the material was purchased by the complainant himself vide bills. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the total estimated cost was for Rs.2,56,000/- and in this quotation, the brand to be used for the purpose of the items mention in column No.2 has specifically been mentioned. The complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/-, vide Ex.C-2, which is supported by the bank statement Ex.C-3. Rs.70,000/- were again paid by the complainant vide Ex.C-3, which is containing four pages. The complainant has relied upon the Whatsapp chatting between the complainant and the OP, which is Ex.C-4, which are just typed messages, but thereafter on enquiry, the complainant has produced on record the print out of the Whatsapp messages. Perusal of those messages clearly shows that there was a conversation between the complainant and the OP. The OP has admitted on July 31, 2019 that he has received Rs.10,000/- advance. He had also sent the pictures of the furnished Kitchen to the complainant and brochure also. On 22 September, 2020 when the message was sent by the complainant to the OP, he asked the complainant to contact H. Lata and categorically made reply to the complainant and promised to come afternoon and he has also mentioned the reason for not coming on 31 October, 2020. Thereafter, the OP did not give reply to the messages sent by the complainant to the OP on different dates. This conversation clearly shows that OP agreed to complete the work of the complainant as per quotation Ex.C-1. On the one hand, the OP is alleging that no quotation was finalized and on the other hand, he is relying upon the bills alleging that the material was purchased by the complainant himself from the OP. Perusal of the chatting nowhere shows that the complainant is to purchase the material rather it has been mentioned that accessories are included in this estimate and attachment has also been there on the next page of the quotation Ex.C-1. The terms of payment have also been given and as per the terms of quotation, total amount agreed was for Rs.2,56,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- has been received by the OP. Once, the quotation was not finalized, the OP could not take the payment of Rs.2,30,000/-, which is 90% of 2,56,000/-.

8.                The OP has relied upon the bills. Perusal of the bill shows that these are of 06 January 2020, 09 January 2020, 10 February 2020, 11 February 2020. The cheque was given by the complainant as per Ex.C-2 on 01.08.2019. If the material was purchased on 06.01.2020, the cheuqe could not have been given five months prior to the purchasing of the material. The amount was debited from the account of the complainant in the name of Woodman Enterprises i.e. OP as per Ex.C-3 on 05.08.2019 and the another amount of Rs.70,000/- was debited in the account of the OP on 30.08.2019, meaning thereby that Rs.10,000/- was taken by the OP on 31 July, 2019 and the remaining amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was received by the OP upto 30.08.2019. In such circumstances, there is no fun of purchasing the material after five months of making the payment to the OP. Once it has specifically been mentioned in Ex.C-1 that 90% advance for confirmation of order, this clearly proves that order was confirmed.

9.                Perusal of Ex.OP-1 the bill shows that the material was allegedly purchased on 06.01.2020 by the complainant vide bill No.250. There is cutting and over writing with regard to the amount, rate and the date in this bill. Similarly, Ex.OP-2 bill No.251 again there is cutting in the amount. Another bill i.e.Ex.OP-3 is Bill No.254 dated 09.01.2020. These bills show that in two days i.e. from 06.01.2020 to 09.01.2020 only two bills were issued i.e. Bill No.252 and 253. This shows that no material was sold by the OP. Similarly, another bill Ex.OP-4 is dated 10.02.2020 and the Bill Number is 255. This also shows that from 09.01.2020 to 10.02.2020, no else person purchased any material from the complainant. Next bill is 11.02.2020 and there is cutting on the date and HSN Code. This also shows that only one bill was issued in between 10.02.2020 to 11.02.2020. Again there is cutting on the bill dated 11.02.2020 Ex.OP-6 in the rate and amount. Perusal of these bills clearly shows that these bills were created lateron. As per the allegations of the complainant, the work was started on 27.07.2019 and during the Covid, the work could not be completed. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 shows that these bills are of 2020, whereas the work started in the month of July, 2019 or August 2019. If the contention of the OP is considered, this means that the work was started by the OP without material. Perusal of the documents show that the material was sent on 13.06.2019, whereas the OP is wrongly alleging that no consent was there regarding the quotation and work was not started.

10.              The complainant has alleged that the OP has used the local brand material, whereas in the quotation, the name of the brand has been mentioned, but he has not produced on record any photograph to show the brand used by the OP while furnishing the work of the Kitchen of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that Rs.20,000/-were given in cash to the OP, but there is no document to show that Rs.20,000/- were given by the complainant to the OP nor any witness has been examined to prove in whose presence the amount of Rs.20,000/- was given by the complainant to the OP. Thus, the receipt of amount of Rs.2,30,000/- has been admitted and proved. It has been proved that the quotation Ex.C-1 was agreed as no other quotation to rebut Ex.C-1 has been filed on record by the OP. It has been proved that the OP was to use the brand as mentioned in the Ex.C-1. Perusal of the chattings Ex.C-4 consisting of the period of different months supported by the printout of the Whatsapp messages clearly show that the complainant was ready to give the balance amount to the OP on completion of the work and he has been making request to the OP time and again for completing the work and taking his money, but the OP has harassed the complainant unnecessarily without any reason. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

11.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to complete the work of furnishing of the Kitchen by using the brand mentioned in Ex.C-1, if local brand has been used, the OP is directed to replace the local brand with the brand as per Ex.C-1 within 45 days, in case the OP fails to complete the Kitchen work, he is directed to return the money as the OP has alleged in Para No.3 that the work was got done by the complainant from OP No.3 and OP No.3 is the partner of the OPs No.1 and 2. The written statement has been filed by all the parties, so all the parties are responsible for the harassment to the complainant. Further, all the OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.01.2024         Member                    Member               President