IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                             Date of Decision: 16.11.2017

First Appeal No. 523/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 31.07.2017 passed in complaint case No. 569/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-West) Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088)

In the matter of:

G M Gupta

61, Paschim Vihar Extn.

New Delhi-110063                                  ..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

  1. Colston Bath and SPA Pvt. Ltd.

I-20 A, Mahindra Park

Opp. Azadpur Fruit Mandi,

                   Delhi-110034

 

  1. Anil Ahuja

Owner, Colston Tower

Building No. 193, Tibbitian Complex

New Metro Station

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

 

  1. Ms. Babita

Owner, Colston Tower

Building No. 193, Tibbitian Complex

New Metro Station

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

 

       4.Amit Garg

                  Manager

                  E-18, SMA Industrial Area

Rajasthani Udyog Nagar

G.T.Karnal Road

‚Äč                   Delhi-110033

  1. Ms. Aanchal

Owner, Colston Tower

Building No. 193, Tibbitian Complex

New Metro Station

Pitampura, Delhi-110034           .........Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.                     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                                                                Yes

2.                     To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                                                                          Yes

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

  1.         Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of the compensation amount passed by the Ld. District Forum Shalimar Bagh New Delhi in complaint case no. 569/2012 dated 19.07.2017 whereby the respondents/OPs jointly and severely directed to pay to the appellant/complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 5000/- for product, Rs. 5000/- for litigation charges and Rs. 10,000/- for compensation).
  2.         Brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s/complainant’s father is a disable person and has lots of problems in going to the toilet. For him the appellant/complainant has bought an English toilet seat on 27.09.2011 from respondent-3/OP-3 by paying Rs. 4500/-. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that he got the commode installed at his place on the same date and spent around Rs. 5000/-. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that on the very next day the above product started showing some problems in flushing occasionally and about one month it worked like this but suddenly on 27.10.2011 it blocked completely. Thereafter the appellant/complainant informed to the customer care department of the company and after two days on 01.11.2011 two persons came and after inspection told that the commode was having problems and that sometime it happens but if it is continues then the commode might require to be changed and asked him to contact the showroom from where it was purchased. It is further alleged by the appellant/complainant that even after problem was continued and again it is informed to customer care i.e. is respondent-1/OP-1, respondent-1/OP-2 told the complainant that as per report received by them commode required to be changed and asked to contact showroom from where it was purchased. The grievance of the complainant is that thereafter he contacted respondent-3/OP-3 and respondent-5/OP-5 again and after lot of heated conversations, the company people agreed to change the commode and said that the commode would be checked in front of their plumber but their plumber did not turn up even after repeated calls to them and he had to pay Rs. 1000/- as ‘dihaadi’ to the plumber without any work done. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that he kept pursuing the matter with the customer care and lastly on 18.11.2011, a company technician Mr. Lal Bahadur came and found that the problems was with the seat and it required to be changed and this fact was mentioned by the technician on the complaint sheet and finally a notice dated 30.11.2011 was issued to the OPs. On that notice manager of respondent-4/OP-4 called the complainant and said that there was no warranty or guarantee with the seat, and therefore he could not replace the same. On 21.12.2012, the appellant/complainant has received a call from the same person who said that now they are ready to replace the product and will sent their person to take the copy of the invoice. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that in a planned manner of cheating, on the same day in the afternoon a person came and took the original invoice from the complainant’s mother who is an old lady by saying that he would get the photocopy of the invoice and will return the original but he did not return back.
  3.         On the above allegations the appellant/complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of the amount of Rs. 5000/- being the cost of commode and also sought an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
  4.         On notice the OPs had contested the case by filing reply wherein they submitted that for verification of product the company sent e-mail and letter through speed post to the complainant on 03.12.2011 but the complainant did not supply the copy of the invoice and warranty card and also stated that the company provided the services to the appellant/complainant without collecting any service charges. All the other allegations were denied by the respondents/OPs and submitted to dismiss the complaint in the absence of any invoice/warranty card.
  5.         Appellant/complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the same facts and denying the submission made by the respondents/OPs and also filed evidence by way of affidavit and filed copy of challan no. 917 dated 28.09.2011 alongwith customer care receipt dated 01.11.2011 and 18.11.2011.
  6.         On the other hand, OPs did not file any affidavit in evidence. However, the District Forum issued notice to the OPs through speed post for appearance but despite notice none appeared for the OPs, hence OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 05.10.2015.
  7.         After considering the complaint, written statement of the respondents/OPs and the evidence filed by the appellant/complainant, the Ld. District Forum held OP-3 liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and passed the following orders in favour of the appellant/complainant:

“i. to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- being the price of the English toilet seat.

 

ii. to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and for pain and agony suffered by the complainant.

 

iii. to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.”

 

  1.         Aggrieved by the aforesaid order appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.
  2.         I have heard the arguments of the appellant/complainant and carefully gone through the record. I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum as the District Forum has already ordered to refund the price of the commode (English toilet seat) i.e. Rs. 5,000/- and also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and mental harassment alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation. Considering the price of the commode, the amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum is adequate. It will not be justified to award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation as appellant/complainant has not provided any documentary proof or any evidence to show as how he had suffered the loss of Rs. 50,000/-. Consumer courts are not meant for enriching the consumers.
  3. In view of the above discussions, no case of enhancement is made out, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. District Forum is correct and needs no inference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limini.
  4. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

(SALMA NOOR)
MEMBER