Glass window dealer penalised for deficient services | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 20, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Glass window dealer penalised for deficient services

District consumer disputes redressal forum on Monday directed a dealer to refund Rs 3 lakh taken as advance to an SAS Nagar resident for deficiency of services after the for mer failed to deliver fabricated doors and windows to the latter.

chandigarh Updated: May 28, 2014 13:23 IST
HT Correspondent

District consumer disputes redressal forum on Monday directed a dealer to refund ` 3 lakh taken as advance to an SAS Nagar resident for deficiency of services after the for mer failed to deliver fabricated doors and windows to the latter.

The forum was disposing of a complaint filed by Manjeet Singh, a resident of Phas e 7 , S AS Nagar, filed against Ajay Aggarwal, director of M&A Tradelinks Pvt Limited, Industrial Area Phase 2, Chandigarh, and Balvir Singht Multani, director of Director M&A Tradelinks Pvt Limited, Phase 7, SAS Nagar. It also directed the company to pay 9% interest on the advance money.

In its order, dated May 23, the forum said that Singh was additionally entitled to ` 10,000 as compensation for harassment and towards litigation expenses.

Singh, in his complaint, had said that he had approached the company for the fabrication of 33 doors and windows of ‘Rehau’ type for his house at SAS Nagar. He alleged that company had claimed to be dealers of the windows of the brand.

He alleged that he had paid a sum of ` 3 lakh as advance payment for the items, which were to be delivered to him within one month.

The company, however, failed to deliver the goods even four months after the order was placed.
Upon seeking a refund, the company not only refused to return but also asked the complainant t o pay the balance amount, alleged the complainant.

The order was given ex parte against Aggarwal after he failed to tur n up despite being summoned by the court.

His par tner, Balvir Singh Multani, denying that there was any deficiency in service, contended that the goods had been manufactured according to the complainant’s description but were not delivered after the latter failed to make the balance payment.