State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Raminder Kaur vs Product Promoters on 19 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH Appeal No.1891 of 2008 Smt. Raminder Kaur wife of Sh. Harminder Singh resident of House No.1539-40, Sector 69, Mohali through her General Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Joginder Pal Singh son of Late Sh. Gian Singh resident of House No.3333, Sector 71, Mohali. ..Appellant. V E R S U S 1. Product Promoters, SCO No.163-164, Sector 8-C, Mdahya Marg, Chandigarh through its owner Sh. I. P. Singh. 2. Product Promoters, SCO No.369, Basement (Backside), Sector 44-D, Chandigarh through its owner Sh. I. P. Singh. ..Respondents. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. HONBLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 1.9.2009 passed in complaint case No.91 of 2008 : Smt. Raminder Kaur Vs. product Promoters and another.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she had approached OPs for installation of Remote Controlled Gate Opening System and Gildermatic Roll-A-Door. Quotations were given by OPs for both the products, which carry warranty of two years from the date of invoice. First installment of Rs.95,000/- was paid by the complainant towards the sale price of these products of 23.7.05 but OPs did not supply the products as per quotations inspite of repeated requests. It was only on 29.12.2006 that only one product namely Gildermatic Roll-A-Door was installed at the garage of the complainant, which also became defective after a short span of installation. The complainant made many complaints and even sent a letter dated 1.6.2007 to the OPs about the defects in the door but there was no response. She again wrote another letter on 12.6.07 and delivered the same at the office of OP where she was asked to give consent for payment of repair charges, which she agreed but the OPs did not bother to visit the site to repair the door even though the same was under warranty and the complainant had even agreed to pay for the repair charges. Alleging the act and conduct of OPs as deficiency in service, the complaint had been instituted.
3. The version of OPs is that the complainant was required to pay 60% of the total cost of the system but she insisted that Rs.95,000/- be accepted and assured the OPs that she would pay the rest of the amount along with 30% of the total consideration at the time of delivery. It has been stated by the OPs that the amount of Rs.95,000/- was received from the complainant on 23.7.05 and approached the father of the complainant about the date on which the material could be supplied at the site and they were informed that the site was yet not ready and as and when it would become ready for the installation of the products, the father of the complainant would inform the OPs to install the system. Even on 21.12.2005, as per the complainant, the site was not ready. However, since, a long time had lapsed, OPs were asked to supply the material at site but she also told the OPs that they would be informed when the installation of the product was to be done. Since, there was some problem with the supply of the stock, which was not readily available with the OPs, they requested the complainant to wait for some time. The supply of the material was received from Madras on 3.4.06 and on the same very day, it was placed at the site of the complainant but it was only on 28.12.06 when the complainant informed the OPs that the site was ready and accordingly, Gildermatic Roll-A-Door was installed on 29.12.2006. It has been asserted by the OPs that the complainant herself was responsible for the delay in the installation as she had failed to get the site ready. OPs thereafter requested the complainant to pay the balance amount since only Rs.95,000/- had been paid but her father refused further payment and also refused to sign the bill in token of proof of installation. It is also the case of OPs that since the complainant failed to take the delivery of the second unit by paying the requisite balance amount, which was to be done at the time of installation of the first unit, OPs were not in a position to supply her the second unit i.e. Remote Controlled Gate Opening System although the same was ready for delivery with the OPs. Further, it has been stated by the OPs that due to negligence on the part of father of the complainant or the labour deputed at the consideration site, the shutter of the system had been damaged while they tried to forcibly open the same. It has been emphasized that the system was operating efficiently from the date of installation i.e. 29.12.06 without any complaint. On the receipt of the complaint about the defect, Sh. I. P. Singh of OPs visited the site and found that the system had been damaged due to force having been applied to open the same. However, OPs as a gesture of goodwill offered to bear half the expenses of the repair charges amounting to Rs.6,500/- but the second half of the same being another Rs.6,500/- were to be paid by the complainant. OPs also asked the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.21,218/-, which had been earlier withheld by the complainant.
4. The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, has recorded that there is no document on file to suggest that OPs had ever informed the complainant that the shutter was tried to be opened forcibly due to which it has been damaged. The learned District Forum also held the view that there would have been no need for opening the shutter forcibly if it had been opening normally and the requirement of opening it forcibly arose only due to certain defect in it and therefore, it meant that the defect had occurred prior to the forcible opening of the shutter. The learned District Forum has also recorded that the complainant had categorically denied having used any force to open the shutter. This added with the fact that the system had a warranty of two years, made the learned District Forum hold the view that OPs are legally bound to repair the system at their own expenses. The learned District Forum further has recorded in the impugned order that in the given circumstances of the case, the prayer of the complainant that the system be removed by the OPs and she be paid back the amount of Rs.95,000/- paid by her cannot be acceded to. It has further been recorded in the order that the complainant is still in the arrears of Rs.21,218/- towards the price of Gildermatic Roll-A-Door. In view of the foregoing analysis, the learned District Forum directed the OPs to render proper repairs to the system installed by it within ten days from the date of deposit of the amount of Rs.21,218/- plus Rs.6,500/- agreed to be paid by the complainant, before the District Forum. The learned District Forum further directed the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for unnecessarily delaying the installation of the system for a long time. It was also clarified that after the repairs, the door will carry a fresh warranty up to 29.12.2009 and the above directions were to be complied with within a period of 30 days.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice were sent to the respondents and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Initially Sh. Y. P. Singla, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent but on the date of final hearing i.e. on 17.11.2009, none appeared for the respondents/OPs whereas Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant.
6. Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though in the impugned order at Para 7, the learned District Forum had come to the conclusion that the OPs were legally bound to repair the shulter at its own expenses, eventually, in the directions, the complainant has also been made liable to pay half the cost of the repairs amounting to Rs.6,500/-. He also further submitted that the complainant had ordered for two items whereas only one has been provided and the second is yet to be provided by the OPs and there is no direction with regard to that in the impugned order and he further submitted that the aim of the complainant to install the products is totally frustrated in case both the products are not installed by the OPs. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be suitably modified in corporating the above prayers.
7. We have heard gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The first issue is with regard to the repair to be done to the shutter. In this case, admittedly, at the time of occurrence of the defect in the shutter, the same was under
warranty. It has also been correctly brought out by the learned District Forum that it was only defect in the shutter, which if at all prompted the father of the complainant or the labour working in the house of the complainant to open the shutter using force. The learned District Forum, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that OPs were legally bound to repair the shutter at their own expenses. However, come to this conclusion, the learned District Forum has brought in an inconsistency in the impugned order by directing the complainant to share half the cost of the repairs. If as stated by the learned District Forum in the impugned order, the shutter was under the warranty and a defect had occurred therein, it was clearly the liability of OPs to get the product repaired free of any charge and therefore, in our considered view, the impugned order to this extent needs to be modified.
9. Coming to the second issue with regard to the provision of the second product, it has been clearly brought out in the impugned order that the complainant has only made a part payment of Rs.95,000/- to the OPs, which admittedly is not the full payment for the ordered equipment. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear view that no direction with regard to the provision of the second product can be given by the learned District Forum till the complainant is able to show that she has made full payments for the products and the same not having been delivered to her.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that OPs are now directed to repair the shutter without any payment to be made by the complainant. OPs are, however, at liberty to seek the balance payment for the products to be supplied from the complainant and the direction of the learned District Forum directing the complainant to deposit the amount Rs.6,500/- in addition to the amount of Rs.21,218/- is set aside. Subject to the above modification, the impugned order is upheld.
11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
19th November 2009.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION Appeal No.1891 of 2008 PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Dated the 19th day of November, 2009.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately; this appeal filed by the complainant has been partly allowed.
(MAJ GEN S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)) MEMBER [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER Ad/-