Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Pritam Pal, President and Neena Sandhu, Member
SOHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GULATI TRADERS - Respondent
Appeal case No. 496 of 2009
Decided on : 14-09-2010
Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate along with Mr. Sohan Singh in person., for the Appellant; Mr. G.S. Pannur, Advocate, for the Respondent
Unfair trade practices and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Deficiency in Service - Unfair Trade Practice - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r) - The court found that the respondent charged the price of a 20 ft. length rod while providing a 17.4 ft. rod, and the cash memo and bill did not tally, indicating unfair trade practice. The court awarded compensation to the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant ordered curtains and rods with stitching and fitting charges from the respondent. The complainant alleged that the rods provided were of inferior quality and not of the specified length, and the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent charged for a 20 ft. length rod while providing a 17.4 ft. rod, and the cash memo and bill did not tally, indicating unfair trade practice. The court held that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.
Issues: The issues involved the quality and length of the rods provided, unfair trade practices, and deficiency in service by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices and there was deficiency in service, leading to the award of compensation to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court awarded compensation to the complainant and directed the respondent to pay the specified amount within a month, failing which penal interest would be applicable.
ORDER
Pritam Pal, President - This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 241 of 2009 was allowed with meagre costs of Rs. 200 only and OP was directed to refund Rs. 190 the excess cost of the rod charged by it.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.
3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant placed an order for purchase of curtains and rods (inclusive of stitching and fitting charges) with OP, who issued a rough bill Annexure C-1. The Complainant then paid the whole amount on 8.12.2008 and demanded the bill, upon which OP assured to issue the same after the completion of the work as the amount could increase or decrease at the time of completion of the work. It was alleged that OP started the work and fitted the curtains of inferior quality. After the completion of the work, the complainant found that a part of the rod was left by the OP which did not look to be of the length of 20 ft. Doubted at the OP, the Complainant again measured the same and found the measurement of rod to be 17.4 ft. in length whereas he had been charged for 20 ft. in length. Further the hood on one side of the rod was also missing and he immediately approached OP and mentioned about the quality of cloth, missing hood and also asked about the Bill. Initially, OP refused to issue the bill but with great persuasion it issued fresh Invoice No. 916, dated 8.12.2008 to the Complainant, a copy of which is Annexure C-3. However, when the Complainant asked about the length and missing hood, the OP started misbehaving with him. Thereafter, the complainant approached Prince Handloom for the measurement and it was found that the length was 17.4 ft and one hood was also missing. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 27.1.2009 upon OP but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the Complainant ordered for the curtains and rods (inclusive of stitching and fitting charges) for which an advance of Rs. 1,500 was given by him at the time of placing an order. The charges for the fitting including labour, rings, hoods, etc. were also included in the price of the rod. As per the trade practice of OP, the charges were calculated on running feet basis; for example, for a measurement of rod of 3.5 ft., charges were calculated for 4 ft. and further charges were levied by adding charges per ft. for the length exceeding 4 ft. and the said charges were fully within the knowledge of the Complainant. It was pleaded that the cloth of curtains and rods were the same as selected by the Complainant. The estimate Annexure C-1 contained the actual costs charged by OP for the job done and after finishing of the job, complainant was issued bill Annexure C-3. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the Counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point raised on behalf of the complainant is that here in the instant case deficiency in service was found on the part of OP by the District Forum but in spite of that no amount on account of compensation was awarded to the complainant. It has also been argued that the amount of Rs. 200 on account of litigation expenses is also very less. On the other hand, Counsel for OP submitted that since no evidence with regard to inferior quality of the curtains was produced, so, complainan
