BONSDAG INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD Vs. YASHPAL AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act"?) is to the order dated 20.06.2019 in First Appeal bearing No. 19/2019 passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"?) by M/s Bonsdag Industries Pvt. Ltd. (for short "the Opposite Party"?). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh (for short "the District Forum"?) and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant is a resident of Chandigarh and he intended to install a hydraulic lift for his personal use and for the use of his family. After going through the website of the Opposite Party wherein they claimed "our proficiency allows us to design and develop passenger elevators of various sizes and capabilities. It gives benefits of jerk less travelling, economically low power consumption and excellent design,"? he contacted them in 2016 for the installation of a passenger hydraulic lift in his house. Various advertisements and promotional materials had been shown to the Complainant and believing their promotions and numerous representations stating timely installation of lift, the Complainant in good faith decided to install their lift. It is stated that on 30.06.2016, the Complainant received quotations vide reference No. Qut/BND/16-17/CL-051 wherein apart from technical specifications the total price of the lift quoted was Rs. 8,00,000/- and as per terms and conditions, out of the total amount 10% was to be paid after successful installation of the lift. The complainant has paid Rs. 7,20,000/- out of the total amount but even after paying such a huge amount, the Opposite Party has not installed the lift fully and stopped the installation work of the lift without assigning any reasons to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant visited their office several times and called the officials of the Opposite Party to complete the lift work but all in vain. Despite accepting a huge amount from the Complainant, no clear information regarding the installation of the lift was given to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant made several requests to the Opposite Party to complete the installation of lift as his family was facing problems in old age but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to his request. The Complainant, was forced to engage another company namely "IEE LIFTS"? to complete the installation. The Complainant was informed that the lift could not be activated as the initial structure and base of lift was improper and not designed at the proper level. Due to this reason, the Complainant had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 2,29,335/- for the proper base and extra spare parts to make the lift operational. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times seeking refund of his money along with interest but there was no response. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following directions to the Opposite Party:-

(3.) The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint and filed a Written Statement stating that the Complainant was a defaulter and in spite of complete installation of the lift, remaining 10% of the amount which is Rs. 80,000/- had not been paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party denied that there was deficiency in service on their part.