“The opposite party failed to provide adequate services for fixing glasses at the house of the complainant, which shows complete negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party,” the commission said.
The dispute arose from a purchase made in November 2021. According to the commission, despite repeated follow-ups by the consumer and even a legal notice, the installation work was never completed. The dealer chose not to contest the proceedings before the commission and was ultimately proceeded against unilaterally.
‘Never installed glass’
According to the complaint, Dr Mohan purchased toughened glass for his residence from Preet Glass House on November 24, 2021 for Rs 93,433. The bill included labour charges of Rs 7,000 for fitting the glass.
The complainant alleged that despite receiving the order and payment, the dealer never installed the glass. He said he repeatedly requested the trader to complete the work and also visited the showroom several times, but to no avail.
The complaint further stated that on May 13, 2022, one of the complainant’s family members contacted the dealer again over the phone. The dealer allegedly assured that the installation would be carried out on May 14, 2022. However, the promise was not fulfilled.
Story continues below this ad
After waiting further, the complainant issued a legal notice on May 17, 2022, calling upon the dealer to complete the installation. The notice was delivered on May 20, 2022. Even thereafter, the installation was not carried out, prompting the complainant to approach the consumer commission by filing a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Dealer remained absent
The commission noted that a notice of the complaint was duly served upon the opposite party (dealer). Still, the dealer failed to appear before the commission and was proceeded against unilaterally on October 17, 2022.
The complainant filed an affidavit and supporting documents, besides producing additional evidence during the proceedings. Since the dealer did not participate in the case, the allegations and evidence remained unchallenged.
Considering the evidence, the commission observed that although the purchase bill reflected a total amount of Rs 93,433, the statement of account produced by the complainant established payments of Rs 50,000 on November 30, 2021 and Rs 41,000 on December 3, 2021, making a total of Rs 91,000.
Story continues below this ad
The commission found no documentary proof showing that the complainant had paid the remaining Rs 2,433 in cash. As a result, it held that only Rs 91,000 stood proved on record and confined the refund to that amount.
The commission also noted that the complainant had produced three bills issued by another glass showroom. Since those bills did not relate to the dealer in the present case, they were held to have no relevance for determining the dealer’s liability.
‘Inconvenience, security issues’
The commission concluded that the dealer had accepted payment from the complainant and had also charged labour charges for installation but failed to provide the promised service. It observed that despite repeated requests and the issuance of a legal notice, the installation work was not carried out, which amounted to negligence and deficiency in service.
“The complainant has suffered inconvenience due to the negligent behavior of (the dealer) of not providing adequate services…of fixing of glasses at the house and…had to face problems from security purposes,” the commission observed. At the same time, it noted that the complainant had not produced proof regarding where the raw material was lying.
Story continues below this ad
Partly allowing the complaint, the commission directed the dealer to refund Rs 91,000 to the complainant, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until its realisation.
In addition, the commission directed the dealer to pay Rs 10,000 as lump sum compensation and litigation expenses, bringing the consumer’s successful claim to Rs 1,01,000, apart from the interest awarded on the refund amount.
Takeaway
If a seller accepts payment for goods along with installation charges but fails to provide the promised service, consumers need not simply wait indefinitely. Bills, payment records and legal notices can become crucial evidence before a consumer commission. This case also shows that while a consumer may not recover every amount claimed without documentary proof, consumer forums can still order a refund of the amount proved on record, along with interest and compensation, if deficiency in service is established.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Punjab: 0800-22577) and Union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
Story continues below this ad
‘Refused refund’ for cancelled Bangkok trip, couple wins Rs 60,000 from travel company
‘Dirty’ towels, ‘plastic’ in soup at hospital, Punjab woman wins Rs 30,000 payout
Late by ‘317 minutes’ in reaching destination, man wins Rs 60,000 from Railways
