Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/254/2018

Mr. P Shanmuganathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Auto Panker India. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s A Thirumaran

07 Dec 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 28.05.2018

Date of Reservation      : 21.11.2022

Date of Order               : 07.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                  :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 254/2018

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

Mr. P. Shunmuganathan, M/A-64 Years,

S/o. S. Perumal,

Plot No,1, Rasathi Kalaignar Nagar,

Mannivakkam Extension,

Vandalur Post,

Chennai – 600 048.                                                       …   Complainant

-Vs-

M/s. Auto Parker India,

Rep. by its Proprietor/Authorised Representative,

Mr. S. Balasundar,

No.67, Mundakanni amman Koil Street,

Madhava Perumalpuram,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                    ...  Opposite Party   

******

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. A. Thirumaran

Counsel for the Opposite Party        : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.27,150/- towards purchase of additional materials and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards labour charges incurred by him on account of hiring labour and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, torture along with cost

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted that he wanted to install an Automated Sliding Gate System for his house and through an online portal India Mart, he came to know that the Opposite Party are specialized in fabrication, supply, erection, installation and commissioning of Automated Sliding Gate System. Thereafter on ascertaining the requirements of the Complainant the Opposite Party met the Complainant and had taken measurement of the place where the Automated Sliding Gate System should be installed.  The cost of the installation and commissioning of the Automated Sliding gate system was arrived at Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of statutory taxes and duties. For which the Opposite Party assured that they will raise tax invoices.  It was informed to the Complainant that at the time of entrusting work to the Opposite Party a sum equivalent to 50% of the entire contract work had to be paid in advance.  Subsequently the Opposite Party had sent a quotation dated 20.07.2017 where in the total quote for the fabrication, supply, erection commissioning of the sliding door amounted to Rs.95,300/- and as per the terms and conditions delivery will be made 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the advance and the balance amount had to be paid after successful completion and trial run of the systems along with GST.  The Opposite Party had also assured that the gate will be motorized by powerful BFT (Italy) make 500 Kg single phase 1000 N Motor.  The Complainant had issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party which was duly honored by 21.08.2017. The Opposite Party had commenced work during mid September 2017 that to after repeated communication in this regard to the Opposite Party as well the India Mart. The Opposite Party had informed the Complainant that Wood Plastic Composite materials  had to be paid separately and the Complainant left with no other alternative had to pay separately and purchase Wood Plastic Composite on 13.09.2017 at Rs.27,150/-. The Opposite Party instead at BFT (Italy) Motor used a Foxtech Motor violating its own quotation.  The Opposite Party had informed the Complainant the work was about to be completed and requested to release the balance payment. The Complainant had made the final payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party which was enchased on 27.09.2017. Thereafter the Opposite Party had stopped the work for reasons best known to them  and the Complainant was forced to engage third person to complete the work and had to spend a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Opposite Party have collected moneys from the Complainant which included GST and CGST but failed to issue Tax invoice to the Complainant. Hence the complaint. 3.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-19. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice and remained set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

        Upon perusal of Ex.A-1 it is seen that the online Portal India Mart had given the details of the supplier, the Opposite Party in response to the offer posted by the Complainant. On 20.07.2017 the Opposite Party had given a quotation for the fabrication, supply, erection and commissioning of Sliding Door at a total cost of Rs.95,300/-. As per the terms and conditions delivery would be 4 weeks from the date of advance payment, the terms of payment is 50% advance amount and balance 50% after the successful completion and trial run of systems, apart from  GST 5% for fabrication and 18% for motor and accessories. Pursuant to which the Complainant had paid  sum of Rs.50,000/- on 21.08.2017 to the Opposite Party as per Ex.A-4, the receipt of payment is confirmed by the Opposite Party vide email dated 28.08.2017. The contention of the Complainant was that the total amount for the fabrication, supply, erection installation and commissioning of Automated Sliding Gate System was arrived at Rs.1,00,000/-. However the Complainant was made to purchase wood plastic composite (WPC) materials separately as

seen from Ex.A7. As per Ex.A-8 the Complainant had made further payment of Rs.50,000/- which according to him had to be repaid after the successful completion of the trial run of the Automated Sliding Gated. But the Complainant had made the final payment as the Opposite Party expressed some financial difficulties in mobilizing funds to complete the work. The Complainant contended that after receiving the final payment the Opposite Party had stopped the work without assigning any reasons. The Complainant had persistently followed the Opposite Party and the said Online portal India Mart as seen from Ex.A-10 to Ex.A-17.  From Ex.A-9 the labour bill dated 16.07.2017, the Complainant had completed the work by engaging 3^rd Party at a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 16.04.2018 to the Opposite Party calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the money spent by the ‘Complainant for the completion of work and for compensation. Inspite of the notice the Opposite Party failed to respond.

        The Complainant placed reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) CPJ 3, Chief Administrator, H.U.D.R Vs. Shakuntla Devi, wherein compensation was awarded for delay in handing over the physical possession of the plot. The Complainant also relied upon the order dated 15.02.1996 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1998 (1) CPJ (NC)38, where supply of defective are conditioning equipment and machinery amounted to gross deficiency of service.

        On considering the facts and circumstances of the of the case and the judgements relied upon by the Complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party having received the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had failed to complete the installation and commissioning of the Automated Sliding Gate as agreed and had charged extra money for the purchase of Wood Plastic Composite at Rs.27,150/-. As the Opposite Party had not complete the work the Complainant was constrained to complete work by engaging third party at a cost of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.A-9. The other allegations of non-fixing of the Sensors, non Supply of remotes, non supply of invoice with warranty card, non provision of manual locking facility were not proved by the Complainant with proper evidence. The act of the Opposite Party in not completing the work as agreed which made the Complainant to engage 3^rd Party to complete the work and charging extra money contrary to the terms and conditions  amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 & 3:-

     As discussed and decided in Point No.1, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.Rs.27,150/- towards purchase of additional materials, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards labour charges and to pay  a sum of Rs.25,000/  towards deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,150/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) towards purchase of additional materials, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards labour charges and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts of Rs.27,150/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 7^th of December 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	16.07.2017	Mail from India Mart referring the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	20.07.2017	Quotation sent by the Opposite Party by mail
Ex.A3	21.07.2017	Mail sent by the Opposite Party forwarding the quotation
Ex.A4	21.08.2017	Copy of the Karur Vysya Bank Statement evidencing payment of advance of Rs.50,000/-
Ex.A5	24.08.2017	Email from Complainant requesting the Opposite Party to comply with the work order given by Complainant
Ex.A6	28.08.2017	Email from Opposite Party acknowledging encashment of advance payment cheque
Ex.A7	13.09.2017	Bill for Rs.27,150/- for the purchase of WPC Materials by Complainant
Ex.A8	27.09.2017	Copy of the Karur Vysya Bank Statement evidencing receipt of Balance amount of Rs.50,000/-
Ex.A9	16.10.2017	Copy of Labour Bill for completion of work
Ex.A10	15.11.2017	E mail from Complainant’s son
Ex.A11	16.11.2017	Email from India Mart to Opposite Party
Ex.A12	17.11.2017	Emil from the Complainant
Ex.A13	2311.2017	Email from the Complainant
Ex.A14	28.12.2017	Email from India Mart to Opposite Party
Ex.A15	12.02.2018	Email from the Complainant
Ex.A16	17.02.2018	Email from the Complainant
Ex.A17	16.03.2018	Email from India Mart to Opposite Party
Ex.A18	16.04.2018	Legal Notice issued by Complainant
Ex.A19	-	Returned Postal covers containing the legal notices

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT