Feedback

Una Consumer Forum Orders ₹12 Lakh Compensation in Gate and Grill Dispute

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una (Camp at Solan), Himachal Pradesh, in a judgment dated September 2, 2024, directed Shri Ram Steel Craft and its proprietor, Krishan Sharma, to pay ₹12 lakh, along with interest, to the complainant, Tapan Goyal, for deficient services and unfair trade practices related to the construction and installation of a wrought iron gate and grills. The forum also awarded ₹30,000 for mental harassment and ₹20,000 for litigation expenses.

Case Background

Complainant:
Tapan Goyal, a resident of Solan, Himachal Pradesh, was constructing a new house and sought to install a wrought iron gate and grills. He contacted Shri Ram Steel Craft (Opposite Parties 1 and 2) based on their online representation as manufacturers of high-quality wrought iron products.

Agreement Details:

• On March 3, 2020, the complainant engaged the opposite parties to construct a custom-designed gate for ₹10 lakh (including GST and ₹10,000 as freight charges).
• A total advance of ₹9.5 lakh was paid by July 30, 2020.
• The gate was delivered and installed on August 1, 2020, but significant defects were found:
  • Poor welding quality.
  • Paint peeling off shortly after installation.
  • Missing decorative parts.
  • The gate's height was only 10 feet instead of the agreed 12 feet.

Additionally, the complainant paid ₹10 lakh on June 18, 2020, for iron grills, which were not delivered.

Key Issues Raised by the Complainant

Defective Gate:

• Poor craftsmanship and materials.
• Reduced height, resulting in a 20% material cost savings for the opposite parties.
• Incurred ₹1 lakh in repairs for welding, repainting, and alignment.

Non-Delivery of Grills:

• Despite advance payment, the iron grills were not supplied.

Unfair Trade Practices:

• Misrepresentation of quality and services.
• Willful negligence in fulfilling contractual obligations.

Opposite Parties’ Response

The opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded ex parte.

Evidence Presented by the Complainant

Gate Defects:

• An independent contractor, Mobin, testified that the gate was poorly welded, fragile, and had peeling paint. He confirmed receiving ₹1 lakh for repairs.
• Measurements confirmed the gate's height was only 10 feet, contradicting the agreed dimensions of 12 feet.

Payment Evidence:

• The complainant provided proof of payments totaling ₹19.6 lakh, including ₹10 lakh for the undelivered grills.

Commission’s Findings

The Commission, presided over by D.R. Thakur, along with members Vijay Lamba and Neelam Gupta, ruled in favor of the complainant, stating:

Defective Gate Installation:

• The gate was of substandard quality, and the reduced height constituted an unfair trade practice. The complainant incurred additional costs for repairs, which were justified.

Non-Delivery of Grills:

• Despite receiving ₹10 lakh, the opposite parties failed to supply the grills, demonstrating deficiency in service.

Uncontested Evidence:

• The opposite parties did not provide any rebuttal or evidence, leading to the acceptance of the complainant’s claims.

Judgment

The Commission ordered the opposite parties to:

1. Compensation:
   • Refund ₹12 lakh (₹1 lakh for repairs, ₹1 lakh for reduced height, and ₹10 lakh for undelivered grills) with 9% annual interest from the complaint filing date until realization.
2. Additional Costs:
   • ₹30,000 for mental harassment.
   • ₹20,000 for litigation expenses.
3. Compliance Deadline:
   • Payment to be made within 30 days from receipt of the order.

Implications

This ruling emphasizes the importance of: