The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a Mohali-based glass dealer to refund ₹28,800 with interest and pay ₹10,000 as compensation to a Delhi resident after holding that it failed to execute specialised glass work despite receiving the full payment in advance.
The order was passed by a bench comprising commission president SK Aggarwal, member Paramjeet Kaur and member Lt Col Jasbir Singh Bath.
The complainant, Yetindra Malhotra, a resident of East Delhi, told the commission that he had engaged Preet Glass House, Sector 78, Mohali, for the supply and installation of specialised glass items. The dealer issued quotation No 535 dated September 15, 2023, for work worth ₹23,800.
According to the complaint, the entire quoted amount was transferred through a bank transaction on the same day. The dealer later sought an additional ₹5,000 towards miscellaneous hardware items, which the complainant paid through a UPI transaction, making it a total of ₹28,800.
The complainant alleged that despite receiving the full payment, the dealer neither supplied the ordered material nor carried out the agreed installation work. He stated that the dealer continued to delay the work while giving repeated assurances. After receiving no response, he served a legal notice on March 1, 2024, seeking either completion of the work or a refund. The notice also went unanswered, prompting him to approach the consumer commission.
In its defence, the opposite party argued that Quotation No 535 had been issued only to enable the complainant to obtain a bank loan and claimed that no goods were supplied under that quotation. It contended that the payment related to another quotation and that the complainant had already collected the goods covered under separate bills.
{{/usCountry}}In its defence, the opposite party argued that Quotation No 535 had been issued only to enable the complainant to obtain a bank loan and claimed that no goods were supplied under that quotation. It contended that the payment related to another quotation and that the complainant had already collected the goods covered under separate bills.
{{/usCountry}}After examining the documents, the commission rejected the dealer’s defence. It observed that once the dealer had accepted payment against Quotation No. 535, the burden was on it to prove that the material mentioned in the quotation was supplied and the contracted work completed. The commission found that no convincing evidence had been produced to establish either delivery of the specialised glass items or execution of the agreed work. It further observed that the bills produced by the dealer related to different items and did not support its claim.
Holding the dealer guilty of deficiency in service, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed it to refund ₹28,800 with 6% annual interest from the respective dates of payment within 30 days. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry 9% annual interest until payment.
The commission also directed the dealer to pay a consolidated compensation of ₹10,000 towards mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service and litigation expenses.