SOHAN SINGH Vs. GULATI TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 241 of 2009 was allowed with meagre costs of Rs.200 only and OP was directed to refund Rs. 190 the excess cost of the rod charged by it.

(2.) THE parties herein after shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.

(3.) IN nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant placed an order for purchase of curtains and rods (inclusive of stitching and fitting charges) with OP, who issued a rough bill Annexure C -1. The Complainant then paid the whole amount on 8.12.2008 and demanded the bill, upon which OP assured to issue the same after the completion of the work as the amount could increase or decrease at the time of completion of the work. It was alleged that OP started the work and fitted the curtains of inferior quality. After the completion of the work, the complainant found that a part of the rod was left by the OP which did not look to be of the length of 20 ft. Doubted at the OP, the Complainant again measured the same and found the measurement of rod to be 17.4 ft. in length whereas he had been charged for 20 ft. in length. Further the hood on one side of the rod was also missing and he immediately approached OP and mentioned about the quality of cloth, missing hood and also asked about the Bill. Initially, OP refused to issue the bill but with great persuasion it issued fresh Invoice No. 916, dated 8.12.2008 to the Complainant, a copy of which is Annexure C -3. However, when the Complainant asked about the length and missing hood, the OP started misbehaving with him. Thereafter, the complainant approached Prince Handloom for the measurement and it was found that the length was 17.4 ft and one hood was also missing. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 27.1.2009 upon OP but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.