E-Paper
Ludhiana | Consumer forum directs furnishing company to pay ₹75K compensation for deficient services
The complaint, filed by Sunit Pilay of Ludhiana in consumer forum, against Carpenters Classics India Private Limited (opposite party 1) and Carpenters Classics India Private Limited, Bangalore, through its managing director (opposite party 2) had sought ₹7 lakh compensation
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Carpenters Classics India Private Limited, Grand Walk Mall, to pay ₹75,000 compensation to a complainant for deficient serving while installing a defunct Italian kitchen at the cost of ₹21 lakh.
The complaint, filed by Sunit Pilay of Ludhiana, against Carpenters Classics India Private Limited (opposite party 1) and Carpenters Classics India Private Limited, Bangalore, through its managing director (opposite party 2) had sought ₹7 lakh compensation.
He alleged that the service providers did not offer requisite services providing the Italian kitchen and did not adhere to the payment schedule as per the contract and kept insisting on the entire payment being made in advance.
The complainant further accused the opposite parties for an acute delay in installation of the kitchen, which was to be delivered and installed within a maximum period of 135 days. Counsel for the complainant further pointed out that in violation of the contract; water proof plywood worktop was not installed.
“The cabinets were left unfinished. The doors of the cabinets were installed wrongly which open in wrong directions and look very absurd and weird. In addition to this, an employee of the OPs broke the worktop causing a loss of ₹1,29,627”, the complainant added.
Refuting the allegations, the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant himself got the worktop installed from some outside agency for which, a sum of ₹93,826 has already been paid to him.
They further pointed out that since the work of the worktop was done from an outside agency, the damage to the worktop cannot be attributed to their employee.
The Commission’s order
The Commission however observed that the opposite parties did not adhere to the time schedule for the installation of the kitchen.
The Commission further stated, “There had been a deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 and OP2 on some accounts such as work was not executed within time and there has been some defects in installation of the kitchen and further that the OP1 and OP2 also did not pay the total amount spent by the complainant on installation of the worktop whereas they were under an obligation to reimburse the total cost without any deduction and under the circumstances.”
The Commission ordered the opposite parties to pay a sum of ₹75,000 as composite compensation to the complainant.
