Date of Filing     : 20.02.2023

                                                                                                                        Date of Disposal: 27.07.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, Ph.D (Law)                           .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR. B.Sc., BL.,                                                               …..MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                           ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.20/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF JULY 2023

Mrs.Sarala Rajendran,

W/o.Rajendran,

No.9, Periyar Street,

Bakthavachalapuram,

Avadi, Chennai 600 054.                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                                               //Vs//

M/s.Syed Steel Doors & Windows,

Rep. by it Proprietor Mr.Syed Suhail,

Old No.1, New No.2-A,

Lamech Street, Janaki Nagar,

Alwartirunagar, Valasaravakkam,

Chennai 600 087.                                                                            ..........Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                :   M/s.M.Thirumalai, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                            :   M/s.A.Raveechandran, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.07.2023 in the presence of M/s.M.Thirumalai, counsel for the complainant and M/s.A.Raveechandran, counsel for the opposite and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to non issuance of Invoice Bill, Warranty Card and in rectification of manufacturing defects made by the complainant along with prayer to direct the opposite party to replace the defective product and to issue Invoice Bill and Warranty Card and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party along with cost of Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

It was the case of the complainant that the opposite party represented to the complainant that they are selling branded Steel Doors and Steel Windows and Bathroom Commode and therefore the complainant booked Steel Doors, Steel Windows and Bathroom commode for her house and also she made payment of Rs.2,07,000/-.  But till date the opposite party has not come forward to issue Invoice Bill, Warranty card and also to replace and rectify the defects in the product. When the complainant received the products with six months delay, the doors and windows were damaged and Toilet seater was obsent. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to replace the defective product and to issue Invoice Bill and Warranty Card and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party along with cost of Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

The complainant and her brother one Mr.Vasanth visited the show room of the opposite party on 29.12.2021 and booked three steel doors.  Later added another door. Booking was made in the name of the complainant but her brother made the payment through Google Pay and cash part by part and took about 3 months to make payment and hence the complainant was not having prima facie right to file the complaint against the opposite party before this Commission. The opposite party agreed upon the terms and conditions laid down by the complainant.  Mastery and labours were provided by the opposite party to the complainant, later the opposite party came to know that the complainant had issues with the labours and contractors because of nonpayment of the wages. On 23.01.2022 the complainant’s brother one Mr.Vasanth further booked Steel Windows by making a part payment of Rs.20,000/- through Google Pay for windows quotation amount of Rs.90,000/-.  In fact the complainant never directly paid the amount to the opposite party.  All the amounts with regard to the purchase of steel doors and windows were made by the brother of the complainant in order to create rift between the opposite party and the complainant. Moreover, steel windows were restructured again with 3 shutters thereby causing a loss of Rs.90,000/- to the opposite party. Due to the aforesaid facts only there was a delay and the delivery was made in April 2022. In the meantime the complainant threatened the opposite party that the complainant would commit suicide and write a note stating that the opposite party was responsible and for which the opposite party informed the complainant that the opposite party would file a complaint about this issue. The complainant had been calling the opposite party’s staff frequently to provide them with measurements and every time the opposite party’s staff visited and explained the sizes. When there was a request from the complainant to rectify the manufacturing defects if any it should be amicably and smoothly completed by the opposite party towards the complainant issue. After a couple of months, the complainant visited again and said that the complainant have installed wooden doors instead of steel doors as the complainant’s family members did not want steel doors and there were a lot of family disputes and that the complainant wants to return back the already purchased 2 steel doors from the opposite party.  As per the rules and regulations of the company run by the opposite party there should not be any return back of the materials which already purchased by the complainant and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, thus sought for the complaint to  be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.10 was submitted.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the alleged complaint allegations against the opposite party with regard to non issuance of Invoice Bill, Warranty Card and non rectification of manufacturing defects by the complainant has been successfully proved by him by admissible evidence?
2. To what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;

1. Order Booking Form signed by the complainant and the opposite party dated 29.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Google Pay receipt dated 29.12.2021  was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Google Pay receipt dated 23.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Erroneous doors photos was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Photos of damaged doors was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Photos of damages steel windows was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Opposite party office Assistant Mr.Raja photos while installing the doors was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Refusing to installation – Voice record of opposite party Mr.Syed Suhail and Office Assistant by Mr.Raja was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Legal notice sent by the complainant dated 03.09. was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A10;

Heard both learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the material evidences produced by both.

The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant ordered Steel Doors, Steel Windows and Bathroom Commode fittings for her house and made payment of Rs.2,07,000/- for which the opposite party did not deliver the product as ordered but delivered defective goods in a delayed manner. The Doors and Windows were damaged and Toilet Seater was not sent causing shock of the complainant. When the complainant approached the opposite party they insulted and threatened to give Police Complaint.  The learned counsel relied upon the conversation happened between the staff of the opposite party with the complainant and argued that the doors ordered by the complainant were sold out and some other doors were delivered to the complainant.  Also argued that no Warranty Card was given for the product and also no original Invoice was given.  Thus he sought for complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

However, refuting the complaint allegations the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that, it is false to state that no invoice was given and he also argued that no warranty was given for wooden products and the entire cash was received from the complainant’s Brother.  Further, he submitted that due to family quarrel between the complainant and her Brother this complaint was filed. He fairly submitted that it is usual that there would be some defects in any product purchased and the opposite party was ready to rectify the defects.  The conversation between the complainant and the staff of the opposite party was false and he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by both parties. The complainant has come up with the case that no Invoice was given to him and that only the booking form was available with him.  If the Invoice was issued to the complainant no necessity arises for him to file the booking form in proof of purchase of the product.  Instead he would have filed the Invoice copy and even now there would be no difficulty for the opposite party to issue an Invoice for the product purchased by the complainant.   It is seen that in the complaint the complainant alleged that he had ordered the product name PETRA Steel Door for Model Petra PTR 100 but the model received was Petra PRT 21 likewise for Petra PTR 100 the complainant received Aegis Steel Wood door for such allegations there was no answer from the opposite party.  Likewise for the allegations that the windows were received with dent, scratches the opposite party did not raise any defence but admitted for rectification of the same.  Thus it is evident that some of the products ordered by the complainant was different from one supplied to him and that there were certain defects which could be apparently seen by the evidence produced by the complainant (I.e.) Ex.A4 to Ex.A6, the photos of the damaged doors and windows.  The argument made by counsel for opposite party that it is common that certain defects could be present in any products ordered could not be accepted. In such circumstances we are of the view that the complaint allegation with regard to deficiency in service has been successfully proved by the complainant.  Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in non issuance of Invoice Bill, Warranty Card and in not rectifying the manufacturing defects and the complaint allegations has been successfully proved by the complainant.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service we are of the view that the complainant should be compensated along with a direction to the opposite party to issue invoice though no warranty is usually given to wooden products and to rectify the defects. We order opposite party to issue invoice and to rectify the defect pointed out by complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation by the opposite party to the complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him

a) To issue invoice for the products purchased and to rectify the defects within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

c)  To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of July 2023.

         -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                                -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

       -Sd-                                                             -Sd-                                                  -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                 MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT