Haryana

Ambala

CC/170/2021

M/s Shiv Shakti International - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ganpati Wood Products - Opp.Party(s)

Daljit Singh Chhillar

24 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	170/2021
Date of Institution	:	23.04.2021
Date of decision	:	24.05.2023

 

M/s Shiv Shakti International, Village Samlehri, NR Mithapur, Ambala Cantt., Tehsil and District Ambala, through its partner Shri Ankur Garg.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. M/s Ganpati Wood Products, Village Tajakpur, P.O.Pansara, Yamunanagar.
2. Rakesh Chanana Prop. M/s Ganpati Wood Products, Village Tajakpur, Post Office Pansara, Yamunanagar.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                             Shri Mewa Ram, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum.
382.  

 Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that complainant firm is a partnership firm and Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, Smt. Anju Bala and Shri Ankur Garg are its partners. Shri Ankur Garg has been authorized by Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and Smt. Anju Bala by special power of attorney to file the cases and to do all the acts as mentioned in the Special Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant. Complainant was to renovate his office and as such, he contacted the OP to purchase plywood for woodwork, in his office. OPs showed number of Veneer plywood, to the complainant and he selected the best one which was available with the OPs and its cost Rs.150 per square feet. OPs also gave a sample of finished Veneer plywood and told the complainant that Vaneer plywood will give the appearance of sample finished plywood, after the polish. Complainant placed the order of the Vaneer plywood and the same was supplied by the OP, vide bill/invoice bearing No.6 dated 18.06.2020 of Rs.1,55,288/- and some of the Veneer plywood was sent without bill. Complainant hired the services of the carpenter and constructed and finished the interiors of the office and thereafter services of Polish-men were hired, who after some work told him that the Veneer is not of good quality and thereafter he contacted the OPs and also sent the images through whatsapp to the OP and informed that the Veneer Plywood supplied by the OP is not the same of which he had promised and given the sample. The OP told the complainant to get the fixtures polished finally and assured that it will give the look of the sample Veneer plywood. Complainant as per advice of the OPs got the fixtures polished, but it did not give the same look and grace which the sample Veneer plywood is having. Complainant repeatedly told the OP to visit and inspect the site but despite repeated requests the OP had neither sent his sales representative nor quality control official, to resolve the complaint and the OP delayed the matter for about six months. Thereafter, complainant got the quality of Veneer verified and it came to the knowledge of the complainant that simple Veneer plywood is “A Grade” Veneer and it supplied to him of which fixtures were made, is of “D grade” and the price of Veneer plywood of “D Grade” in the market is Rs.30/- per square feet. Whereas the Veneer plywood which he purchased cost him Rs.150/- per squre feet. Complainant had spent sum of more than Rs.4 lacs on fixtures and polish of the Veneer plywood installed in the office. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that OP showed number of Veneer Plywood and the complainant after seeing the quality of all the plywood selected one of them and the same was supplied to the complainant and till date no complaint has been given to the OP by the complainant.  The Veneer plywood which was selected by the complainant supplied by the Op and bill has been issued.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.            Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Rakesh Chandna, C/o M/s Ganpati Wood Products, Village Tajakpur, Post Office Pansara, Yamunanagar as Annexure OP-A alongwith document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant on the date of arguments, thereafter, we have heard the learned counsel for OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that OP showed number of Veneer Plywood and the complainant after seeing the quality of all the plywood selected one of them and the same was supplied to him and no complaint has been given to the OPs by the complainant at any point of time.  The Veneer plywood which was selected by the complainant supplied by the OPs and bill has been issued.
7.           At the time of final arguments neither no one appeared on behalf of the complainant nor his counsel. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the OPs have supplied the Veneer Plywood which had shown to complainant before the purchase of the plywood in question and the bill was issued to him. He further argued that complainant miserably failed to prove his case, by not filing any cogent evidence. From the perusal of affidavit Annexure C-A, it is evident that the contention of the complainant that the OPs supplied the fixtures of “D grade” whereas the sample was shown to the complainant Vaneer plywood of “A Grade”, the complainant failed to place on record any evidence to this effect. The plea taken by the complainant in his complaint regarding sending whatsapp images and the oral statement of the carpenter regarding sub-standard of plywood, are totally false and frivolous. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 24.05.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President