Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/21/2022

M/s Vision Ply World - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Singh Rawat - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Jindal, Rishav Jain & Kanish Jindal Adv.

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	21 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	24.02.2022
Date of Decision	:	11.10.2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Vision Ply World, SCO No.1, Clockton High Street, Omaxe, Phase-I, New Chandigarh, Distt. Mohali, Punjab through its Attorney of proprietor.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Rakesh Singh Rawat S/o Late Sh. G. S. Rawat, R/o H.No.267, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued  by:- 

Sh. N. S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite party, namely, M/s Vision Ply World (appellant herein) against order dated 06.01.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.328 of 2021 filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Rakesh Singh Rawat (respondent herein) has been partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“16.   For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]      To refund a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the Complainant being the cost of doors and other material cost spent by the Complainant on the said doors;

[b]     To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

[c]      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

17.    The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions contained in sub-para [c] above.

18.    It is made clear that after making payment of the entire awarded amount, as aforesaid, the Opposite Party will detach the existing 04 wooden Jali doors from the flat of the Complainant only after giving one month’s prior notice to the Complainant in writing to enable him to get the new doors prepared and affixed from some other vendor of his choice, being mandatory item of the flat.”  

2.      The brief facts as culled from the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the District Commission were that the respondent purchased 4 Sudan Teak Wooden Doors and 5 Jali Windows for his Flat at Omaxe Casia, New Chandigarh, from the appellant on the assurance that the life span of the same would be minimum 15 years. The price of the Jali Door was quoted @ Rs.4500/- per piece and Rs.1400/- per piece of Jali window, without hardware and polish. The respondent paid total amount of Rs.32,000/- to the appellant for the aforesaid purchase. In the month of March 2020, the appellant supplied and fixed the doors/windows at the Flat of the respondent without polish and hardware fittings, which were subsequently got done by the respondent himself by incurring extra amount. It was averred that out of the Wooden Jali Doors provided, one was found defective, which was replaced by the appellant after heated arguments. In the month of June 2020, the respondent noticed that there were cracks in two doors and in the third door, there was a gap, which fact was duly brought to the notice of the appellant. It was further averred that appellant took two Jali Doors in September 2020 with the assurance to replace the defect free doors of the same quality with polish and hardware but returned back with filling the cracks instead of replacing the same. It was further averred that the appellant never bothered to attend the complaint of the respondent with regard to the third door. When despite persistent follow ups, the appellant did nothing to resolve the issue, the respondent got served a legal notice dated 29.09.2020 upon the appellant but to no avail.  In due course, the fourth door supplied by the appellant also turned to be defective. With the cup of woes brimming, the respondent filed consumer complaint before the Ld. District Commission alleging the aforesaid acts amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant.

3.                On the other hand, it was the case of the appellant before the Ld. District Commission that every wood has its own distinctive feature and the changing season/climate and/or any excessive dryness of the air could lead to superficial hairline cracks in the wood. It was pleaded that due to the very nature of the wood, complete elimination of cracks was not possible and it never carried any warranty. It was further pleaded that the respondent concocted series of allegations just to make out a frivolous case to enrich himself. It was further pleaded that on receipt of legal notice, although an attempt was made to amicably settle the matter but the same could not proved to be fertile due to the exorbitant demand of the respondent.

4.                The setting aside of the impugned order has been sought by the appellant on the grounds that the Ld. District Commission has failed to take notice of the factors that the allegations have been leveled by the respondent after 4 to 5 months of the actual fittings of doors and no defect in quality of doors and windows were pointed out when the same were got fitted by the respondent at his own level and further the cracks in the doors would depend upon many reasons like the doors are open to sun heat/its usage/weather conditions etc. It has further been stated that since the respondent had ordered for raw doors only and the material was duly supplied to him as per estimate, Exhibit C-1, therefore, the finding of the Ld. District Commission to the effect that the appellant was guilty of supplying the doors without hardware/paint/polish is not sustainable. It has further been stated that since the size of the door was measured by the respondent himself and the same size was ordered by him, therefore, the finding of the Ld. District Commission that one door supplied was of improper size is wrong. It has further been stated that the assessment to the extent of Rs.24,000/ assessed by the Ld. District Commission for finishing the doors after paint/polish and hardware is without any evidence to establish the same. It has further been stated that the respondent paid only Rs.18,000/- as cost of raw doors, however, the Ld. District Commission allowed refund of cost of 4 doors without any expert evidence to the effect that there was some manufacturing defect. Lastly, it has been stated that the Ld. District Commission was not having any territorial jurisdiction enabling it to pass the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside on this score alone.

5.                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based upon well appreciation of documentary evidence available on record and the Ld. District Commission rightly held the appellant liable and accordingly, directed the appellant to refund the cost of doors and other material cost spent by the respondent on the said doors besides awarding compensation and litigation costs. Lastly prayer for dismissal of appeal has been made by the respondent.

6.                After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the record and the impugned order very carefully, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

7.                As regards the contention of the appellant that that the Ld. District Commission failed to take notice of the factors that the allegations have been leveled by the respondent after 4 to 5 months of the actual fittings of doors and no defect in quality of doors and windows were pointed out when the same were got fitted by the respondent at his own level and further the cracks in the doors would depend upon many reasons like the doors are open to sun heat/its usage/weather conditions etc., it may be stated here that it is, no doubt, an admitted position on record in terms of coloured photographs of all the four doors placed by the respondent that all the four doors were defective despite the fact that these were made of Sudan Teak Wood, which is said to be best in class having durability of at least 10 to 15 years. At the initial stage, when the doors are fitted, its quality, make and durability cannot be adjudged by the consumer as it all depends on the workmanship, quality of wood used and the assurance projected to the consumer at the time of selling or delivering the product. Thus, in our considered view, the Ld. District Commission has rightly observed in Para 11 of its order, inter-alia, as under:-

“…….However, we are not impressed with this contention of the Opposite Party, in as much as, the Opposite Party, who itself claims to be engaged in the business of selling of wooden doors and windows must know about the hard and high durability of Sudan Teak. Needless to mention here, the life span of Sudan Teak is long-lasting and for the said reason, it is considered as the king of outdoor wood types and the doors prepared therefrom, to our mind, will certainly last long. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be expected that the 04 wooden doors made of Sudan Teak would turned to be defective within few months of their affixation. It is relevant to add here that along with the 4 Sudan Teak Wooden Jali Doors, the Opposite Party also provided 5 Jali Windows of the same wood. However, there was no Complaint regarding any defect(s) whatsoever regarding the same. All this lead to an irresistible conclusion that the four doors were defective and the Opposite Party is bound to replace the same with new ones, as it was basing on the projections made by the Opposite Party about the high quality of the Sudan Teak Wood, the Complainant purchased the doors in questions. The Opposite Party cannot be allowed to back out from its commitment and harassing the Complainant by filling the cracks in the doors. Thus, the defence put forth by the Opposite Party falls on the ground.”

8.                The next argument raised by the appellant is that since the respondent had ordered for raw doors only and the material was duly supplied to him as per estimate, Exhibit C-1, therefore, the finding of the Ld. District Commission to the effect that the appellant was guilty of supplying the doors without hardware/paint/polish is not sustainable. This contention of the appellant has no legs to stand for the simple reasons that firstly, all the four doors supplied by the appellant to the respondent were defective and secondly, if the contention to the extent that all the four doors and windows supplied were to be delivered in raw wood only without polish, paint, fittings etc. is accepted, even then the position would remain the same as the doors in question were defective, for which, as stated above, the appellant is liable to bear all costs incurred by the respondent. Definitely, the respondent suffered huge financial loss on account of poor workmanship on the part of the appellant.

9.                In view of above, the next contention of the appellant that since the size of the door was measured by the respondent himself and the same size was ordered by him, therefore, the finding of the Ld. District Commission that one door supplied was of improper size is wrong, is also not sustainable. The Ld. District Commission has rightly held that as per material on record, the defects pointed out in the complaint are apparently discernible from the photographs annexed by the Complainant with the Complaint as Annexure C-4 to C-8, which makes it crystal clear that the appellant supplied the defective wooden doors and there was a clear case of poor workmanship also in their make.

10.              The next argument raised by the appellant that the assessment to the extent of Rs.24,000/ assessed by the Ld. District Commission for finishing the doors after paint/polish and hardware is without any evidence to establish the same is also not sustainable. The Ld. District Commission has exhaustively discussed each and every fact and documentary evidence on record, in Para 13 of its order, to arrive at a correct finding, inter-alia, as under:-0

 “…….the Opposite Party did not produce on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant did not get the polish work and fitting of the requisite hardware/accessories done on the 04 Jali Doors supplied by it and also that the photographs annexed by the Complainant are not the actual photographs at the site. Admittedly, the Opposite Party supplied doors without Polish and the same were got polished by the Complainant himself from the third party. Besides this, the hardware fittings were also affixed by the Complainant himself. The Polished doors along with the accessories/ hardware are clearly seen from the photographs annexed by the Complainant. The quality of the polish and hardware on the doors can also be gauged therefrom. It is thus established that the doors were got polished and accessories were also got fitted by the Complainant from a third party, who certainly have charged for the same. To our mind, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show the amount spent by the Complainant and in view of the fact that the polish work and fittings of hardware/ accessories was done at the site by some other person, it is apt to apply guess work, keeping in view the prevailing market rates, by virtue of which we feel that the Complainant must have spent minimum Rs.6000/- each for getting the 04 Jali Doors Polished and for hardware fittings. It is thus safe to deduce that the Complainant must have paid not less than a sum of Rs.24,000/- for execution of the said work. Apart from this, there is no dispute about the price settled between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for the 04 Jali Doors was Rs.4500/- per door. The Complainant thus paid Rs.18,000/- towards the price of the 04 Jali Doors. To cap it all, in whole, the Complainant spent a total sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.18,000/- + Rs.24,000/-) on the defective doors in question, which were provided by the Opposite Party. Thus, to our mind, the Complainant is held entitled for the refund of Rs.42,000/- instead of Rs.45,000/- as claimed by him.”  

11.              Further the findings of the Ld. District Commission in Paras 14 and 15 of its order are just and fair as the deficiency on the part of the appellant is very much galore as they failed to provide proper services to the respondent and rather indulged into unfair trade practice by supplying defective doors, for which, the respondent had paid his hard earned money. The very purpose of the doors became futile and they were found to be defective and started giving problem to the respondent. In our considered view, the Ld. District Commission rightly observed in its order that the harassment suffered by the respondent is also writ large and the appellant certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have redressed the grievance of the appellant forthwith, which it miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the respondent. Thus, it rightly partly allowed the complaint of the respondent by having ordered refund of the costs of the doors and other material cost spent by the respondent on the said doors besides awarding compensation and litigation costs.

12.              Therefore, in our concerted view, the impugned order, being legal and just, does not call for any interference and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13.              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of according having become infructuous.

14.              It may be stated here that during the pendency of this appeal, out of the total amount of Rs.33,500/- deposited by the appellant with this Commission, an amount of Rs.18,000/- was released in favour of the respondent/complainant vide order dated 16.03.2022 and therefore, the order of the Ld. District Commission be complied with by the appellant after adjusting this amount of Rs.18,000/- paid to the respondent/complainant.

15.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

16.              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

11.10.2022.

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad