| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.102 of 02-05-2019 Decided on : 30-08-2022 Purav Midha S/o Kashmiri Lal R/o Street No.10, Main Road Near Traffic Light Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda MD Psychiatry of Midha Neuropsychiatry and De-addiction Hospital, Street No.10, Main Road Near Traffic Light Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda . ........Complainant Versus 1.ACE Elevators, S226 and S227, IInd Floor, Vardhman Kay Point Plaza LSC Market, Plot No.7, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110075, through its Chairman/Director. 2.ACE Elevators, S226 and S227, IInd Floor, Vardhman Kay Point Plaza LSC Market, Plot No.7, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi, through its Authorized Signatory Mr.Neeraj. (Deleted) .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Smt.Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh.Japneet Kapil Kangar, Advocate. Opposite party No.1 : Ex-parte. Opposite party No.2 : Deleted. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Purav Midha (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against ACE Elevators and other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is MD (Psychiatry) doctor and running the hospital in the house under the name and style of Midha Neuropsychiatry and De-addiction Hospital for livelihood for himself and his family members. Opposite parties are running the business of constructing/installing the lift under the name and style of ACE Elevators at S227, IInd Floor, Vardhman Kay Point Plaza LSC Market, Plot No.7, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi and are giving their services to the customers in their cities. It is alleged that the complainant handed over the contract for installing passenger auto lift in his house/hospital on 15.3.2015 for Rs.6,80,000/-. As per contract, opposite parties shall complete their job in 50 days from the date of contract and they received an amount of Rs.5,90,860/-, out of which Rs.5,25,000/- by bank transactions and Rs.65,860/- by cash has been received, from the complainant. As per contract, the lift was to start working by 15.5.2015, but opposite parties did not hand over the complete work of the lift in the month of May 2015 and handed over incomplete lift in the month of August 2015. It is further alleged that the lift stopped working many times and there is defect in the lift. The son of the complainant aged 2 years was got trapped in the lift due to power failure. The sensor of lift is also not working. Due to this, leg of one patient was trapped in the lift. Once day one doctor of hospital was boarding in the lift with her four years daughter and due to defect in the lift, his daughter suffered serious injury. The aged parents of the complainant are living at 4th Floor and they are facing very difficulty to move about. So far the lift is not installing properly. The complainant has many times written e-mails to the accused persons and got issued notice through his counsel, but to no avail. The act and conduct of the accused persons is negligent, deficiency in service, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice and due to their negligent and carelessness acts, the complainant has suffered from financial loss, physically and mentally. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.6,80,000/- alongwith interest upto date and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. In view of statement suffered by counsel of complainant on 9.5.2019, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of agreement, (Ex.C1) photocopies of bills, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C4); Photocopy of e-mails, (Ex.C5); Photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C6); Photocopy of complaint/letter, (Ex.C7); Photocopy of enquiry report, (Ex.C8); Photocopy of order, (Ex.C9); his affidavit dated 2.5.2019, (Ex.C10). We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in his pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Since, all the allegations of the complainant are un-rebutted, un-challenged and no one has come forward to contest his claim. We have no alternative except to appreciate the complaint as well as the evidence of the complainant, which appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is on the file that the complainant handed over the contract for installing passenger auto lift in his house/hospital on 15.3.2015 and paid Rs.5,90,860/- to opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 did not do the complete work of the lift. Due to this, the lift stopped working and caused inconvenience to the complainant. Though, as per pleadings, price of the said lift is Rs.6,80,000/- and complainant paid Rs.5,90,860/- to opposite party No.1, but as this point is not fact in issue in this complaint. So, we are hesitent to discuss it furthermore. The complainant sent e-mails, (Ex.C5) and got issued legal notice, (Ex.C6) to opposite party No.1 regarding defect in the lift, but nothing has been done by opposite party No.1 till date. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. This Commission is of the view that a person spends his hard earned money on a product to use and enjoy it, but if the purchased product is defective and seller/manufacturer does not do the needful on asking/requests, then there is clear cut deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of seller/manufacturer. Only sale of a product should not be the only motive of seller/manufacturer, rather after sale service is also their liability. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the lift of the complainant by removing the defect wihtout charging anything from the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 30-08-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President
(Paramjeet Kaur) Member | |
