Haryana

Karnal

CC/342/2022

Mohinder Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vaishnu Steel Works - Opp.Party(s)

Dheeraj Sachdeva

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.342 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.15.06.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:16.10.2023

 

Mohinder Rajpal son of Sawan Ram, resident of at AR Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. opposite Ashoka Hotel Railway Road, Karnal-132001 Haryana.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Vaishnu Steel Works, office add-1901, Maharaj Nagar, Lane no.4, opposite Ansal Plaza, Ludhiana pin code-141001 through its authorized person/owner Naresh Goyal and Deepanshu Goyal phone no.0161-2427400. Mobile no.98140-83820 98729-17148 email-vaishnusteelworks@gmail.com.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri G.P. Singh, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant was intended to get installed/fitted some grills i.e Wrought Iron railing Grill at his house and OP approached to complainant and showed their railing works and claimed to be one of the leading railing works and also promised to provide the best quality railing alongwith highly skilled fitting works for proper and accurate fitting of grills at the required premises. In the month of July-August 2021, OP visited the premises of complainant and got a view of the site of work and after getting all the measures of the work, OP quoted a rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. feet for providing wrought iron railing alongwith its fitting at the premises of complainant including the transportation cost of grill. OP also assured that the quality of the wrought iron railing will be premium quality and the fitting will be done by their expert engineers. The payment schedule was also told by OP and it was agreed that some amount of said work will be given at the time of order and the balance final amount will have to be paid by the complainant after installation and measurement of railing. For all the abovesaid deal of work, OP issued an order form duly signed by the OP. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.75000/- on the same day and OP assured that the grill work will be completed by them within 50 days. It is further averred that after making advance payment of Rs.75000/-, complainant contacted to OP in the month of October 2021 and asked about the grill work. 50 days period was already elapsed in October, 2021 but OP did not complete the grill work. Moreover, OP again demanded more advance for work. Under the compelling circumstances, complainant paid Rs.60,000/- on 27.10.2021 to the representative of the OP namely Sandeep Sharma. Thereafter, complainant contacted to OP many times to get the job work done and OP asked complainant to come Ludhiana for checking the quality of same and complainant visited the office of OP in February, 2022 but when complainant reached and checked the quality, the quality was not according to the promise of the OP. Complainant when objected about the quality of the railing, then OP assured that the same will be rectified and the finished good as promised will be delivered and fitted soon. Thereafter, when complainant again enquired about the railing, OP again demanded some payments for which complainant resisted that more than 70% of the total payment has already paid by the OP and now as per the commitment, the balance payment would be paid after completion of the work. Upon this OP started new concocted story by stating that the measurement is 100 running feet, whereas at the time of order, the measurement duly taken by the OP was only 70 running feet. After that, complainant visited the shop of OP so many times and requested to complete the grill work but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and did not complete the work. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant has to bear loses of time and money and for this, OP is liable to pay compensation to complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice to OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- which has already been paid to the OP with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment since July, 2021 till realization, to issue the measurement certificate of the work after completion, so as to complainant would be able to pay the balance amount to the OP for the grills work done (if any), to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.51000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant and his family members initially personally contacted the OP on telephone on 06.09.2021 and thereafter they visited the OP on 18.09.2021. After seeing and appreciating the work of the OP and making enquiries about the cost of the material and labour charges, the complainant and his family members placed the order with the OP for the construction of railing at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. feet for 220 feet, the charges of which comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. They paid a sum of Rs.75000/- as advance payment on 19.10.2021 to the OP. In addition to the abovesaid amount, complainant and his family members had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.55000/- to the OP towards paint work, Rs.25000/- for cartage and Rs.60000/- for main pillar. It is further pleaded that in the order form, it is clearly mentioned that GST, fixing, cartage, primer, pain and lock will be charged extra. On 27.10.2021, the officials of the OP personally visited the residence of the complainant and his family members and they prepared the frames for railing. At that time, complainant and his family members made part payment of Rs.50,000/- to the OP and out of this amount, Rs.10,000/- was adjusted towards cartage. OP prepared the grill as per the order of the complainant. Since the grill was prepared by the OP as per the specifications of the complainant and the frame was prepared as per the construction of staircase of the complainant and his family members and even the design of the grill was also prepared by the instructions of the complainant and his family members and as such, said grill was useless for the OP and it could not have been installed anywhere except the designated place of the complainant. OP had completed the work of manufacturing/preparing the grills well within time. After the preparation of grills, the OP informed the complainant and his family members and requested them to take the delivery of grills after making the payment of balance amount. Various correspondence were done by the OP with the complainant and his family members through whatsapp as well as telephonic message and requested the complainant to take the delivery of the grill and to make the payment of balance amount but complainant had not turned up to make the payment of balance amount and to take the delivery of the grills. Instead of paying the balance amount, complainant has filed the present complaint in order to avoid the payment of balance amount against the OP stating falsely that the material prepared by the OP is of substandard. A sum of Rs.3,45,000/- is still due against the complainant, for which OP has filed a suit for recovery of said amount alongwith pendent-lite and future interest at Civil Courts, Ludhiana. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of order sheet/payment receipt of Rs.75000/- Ex.C1, copy of receipt of payment of Rs.60000/-Ex.C2, copy of SMS of payment recovery dated 27.10.2021 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5, legal notice via email Ex.C6, pen drive of record between complainant and OP Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 23.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Naresh Goyal Ex.OP1/A, copy of whatsapp chat message Ex.OP1, pen drive Ex.OP2, copy of work order Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 11.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant intended to get installed/fitted some grills i.e Wrought Iron railing Grill at his house from the OP. OP also assured that the quality of the wrought iron railing will be premium quality and the fitting will be done by their expert engineers. An agreement executed between the parties regarding work and payment schedule etc. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.75000/- on the same day and OP assured that the grill work will be completed by them within 50 days but OP did not complete the grill work. Moreover, OP again demanded more advance for work. complainant paid Rs.60,000/- on 27.10.2021 to the representative of the OP. The quality was not according to the promise of the OP. Complainant when objected about the quality of the railing, then OP assured that the same will be rectified. Complainant paid more than 70% of the total payment to the OP as per the commitment, the balance payment would be paid after completion of the work. Now OP stated that measurement is 100 running feet, whereas at the time of order, the measurement duly taken by the OP was only 70 running feet. Complainant visited the shop of OP so many times and requested to complete the grill work but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and did not complete the work and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant placed an order for the construction of railing at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. feet for 220 feet, the charges of which comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. They paid a sum of Rs.75000/- as advance payment on 19.10.2021 to the OP. Complaint had also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.55000/- to the OP towards paint work, Rs.25000/- for cartage and Rs.60000/- for main pillar. On 27.10.2021, the officials of the OP visited the residence of the complainant and they prepared the frames for railing. OP prepared the grill as per the order of the complainant. Since the grill was prepared by the OP as per the specifications of the complainant and the frame was prepared as per the construction of staircase of the complainant and even the design of the grill was also prepared by the instructions of the complainant as such, said grill was useless for the OP and it could not have been installed anywhere except the designated place of the complainant. OP had completed the work of manufacturing/preparing the grills well within time. OP requested the OP to take the delivery of grills after making the payment of balance amount. Instead of paying the balance amount, complainant has filed the present complaint in order to avoid the payment of balance amount against the OP stating falsely that the material prepared by the OP is of substandard. A sum of Rs.3,45,000/- is still due against the complainant, for which OP has filed a suit for recovery of said amount alongwith pendent-lite and future interest at Civil Courts, Ludhiana and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant placed an order to get installed the grill, railing etc. at his house with the OP.

11.           The complainant has alleged that the quality of the railing grill is not according to the promise of the OP. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.  Complainant has only relied upon the pen drive Ex.C7, which could not proved as per law. There is nothing on the file to prove that the railing grill in question, supplied by the OP is not the quality which was promised by the OP by showing the pictures. It is also not proved on the file that railing grill is having any manufacturing defect. Both the parties have relied upon order form Ex.OP3, the terms and conditions of order form Ex.OP3 is reproduced as under:-

        . 50% advance and balance payment before delivery.

        . Advance is not refundable.

        . Fixing, Cartage, Primer, Paint and lock will be changed extra.

        . GST and any other government levis will be charged extra.

        . Inspection can be done at our factory premises.

        . Goods once sold never returnable.

        . All disputes will be settled at Ludhiana Jurisdiction

Complainant himself failed to make the remaining payment as per order form Ex.OP3. 

 12.          It is pertinent to mention here that on the request of the parties, the matter was again and again adjourned for compromise and every time OP was ready and willing to settle the matter amicably, the matter was amicably sought out two or three times but every times, the complainant turned out from the compromise. The act of the complainant was not fair before the Commission.

 13.          Complainant has not made the remaining payment as per the payment schedule. Thus, the OP has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,45,000/ -, which is still pending in Civil Court, Ludhiana (Punjab). Thus, the matter is subjudice. Hence, in view of the same, the complaint is also not maintainable.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.10.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)      (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                      Member                               Member