State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Chabadiya vs Surendra Singh on 14 July, 2016
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2015 (Arising out of order dated 19.05.2015 passed in C.C. No. 25/2014 by the District Forum, Bhopal) VIJAY CHHABADIYA. ... APPELLANT. Versus SURENDRA SINGH SAHNI. ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL : MEMBER Counsel for parties: None present for the appellant. O R D E R (Passed on 14.07.2016)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:
None present for the appellant. On last three occasions i.e. 12.10.2015, 02.12.2015 and 13.04.2016 counsel for appellant sought time on one ground or the other. However, we have considered the appeal on merits.
2. This appeal is by the opposite party being aggrieved with the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in CC No.25/2014.
3. In brief, the case of the complainant/respondent before the Forum was that on 16.10.2013 he placed an order to opposite party/appellant for fixture of wall paper at his house till 19.10.2013. Total amount for the said work was fixed at Rs.11,000/- out of which he paid Rs.5,000/- to the appellant in advance and rest amount of Rs.6000/- has to be paid on completion of wall paper work. The appellant failed to do the said work within stipulated time. It is alleged that on 20.10.2013 there was some religious function at his home, therefore, he wants that the work will be completed by 19.10.2013 but when the work was not completed, he had to suffer mental pain as so many guests visited his house on 20.10.2013. The complainant/respondent therefore -2- filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/-.
4. The opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint on the ground that it is true that order for wall paper was placed on 16.10.2013 and at that time only he was told that wall papers will come from Delhi via courier within two or three days. The complainant/respondent never told him that there was some function at his home on 20.10.2013the complaint is time barred. It is submitted that the complainant never approached for refund of amount paid as advance. He is not the partner or proprietor of the firm, he was made as a party in personal capacity.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to refund Rs.5000/- to respondent within one month. The District Forum has also directed the appellant to pay to complainant/respondent Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. Being aggrieved with the said order the opposite party/appellant has preferred the present appeal.
5. We have perused the record and gone through the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum in its elaborative and descriptive order described the conditions in paragraph 7 and reached to the conclusion in para 8 and while allowing the complaint ordered for payment of compensation and cost and to refund the amount received as advance. We find that in the facts and situation of the case, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and granted relief to complainant. We do not find any infirmity or adversity in the order passed by the District Forum. We therefore find that this appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage having no merits at all.