Panchkula, December 18
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, has directed M/s Dinesh Glass House in Panchkula to pay a compensation of Rs 25,500 to a Sector 20 resident for damaging a wooden panel.
Commission president Satpal also directed the shop to refund Rs 12,000, along with 9 per cent interest from the date of filing the complaint.
Sumit Gulati, a resident of Sector 20, Panchkula, in his complaint to the commission, stated that he visited the shop to purchase glasses to be fitted in a wooden panel at his residence. A worker at the shop showed the design of glasses on computer. The complainant finalised the design after few modifications. The opposite party (M/s Dinesh Glass House) gave a rough estimate of Rs 12,000 of the total work.
Relying upon the advice given by the worker at the shop, he gave an order to make four frosted design glasses to be fitted at his residence by December 14, 2020. He paid full and final amount of Rs 12,000 in cash, whereas he was given a tax invoice of only Rs 3,613.
He said the glasses were delivered on December 18, 2020, wherein it was found that their design was not the same which was finalised at the time of placing the order. Further, the glasses were also dirty with lots of scratches. The matter was brought to the notice of the OP. While fixing 5MM glass, the plywood of the showcase got damaged. The worker told that 8MM glass was required for proper fitting. While taking measurements earlier, the worker advised for 5MM glass. Further, workers were not professional. While fitting glasses, they used big iron nails, which led to cracks at various places in the wooden panel. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP telephonically on various occasions, but it never paid any heed to his request and always made false promises to resolve the issue.
The commission, in its order, said: “The objections raised by the OP are rejected having no merit as the report has been made by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, PWD Bamp;R Branch, Panchkula, as per the actual site inspection in the presence of both parties. There is no ambiguity in the site inspection report. Further, no legal infirmities have been found therein. Therefore, we have reached the conclusion that the OP was negligent and deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief”.
