BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 8th day of February 2024.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.250/2021
Complainant
M D Vargheese, Mekkattukulam, 63/SNRA Name Sahrudaya Nagar, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024
Vs.
Opposite party
Aji George, Proprietor, Bright Maintenance Company, Geo Construction Yard, Opposite to SBI, Puthiya Road, Vennala P.O., Kochi-682 028
(O.p rep. by Adv.Seena A., Sreekala S., Plakkat Colony, Kaloor-Kadavanthra Road, Cochin-682 017)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
The complainant states that he had entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 08.01.2021 for procuring certain wooden based house interior decoration products and services and the complainant and the opposite party had mutually agreed the terms and conditions. Since the work involved shall cause disturbance like dust, sound, dislocation of household items, the complainant had shifted his residence to a rental building on payment of rent of Rs. 35,000/- per month. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.32,750/- to the opposite party as advance and the opposite party started supply and delivery services from 15th February 2021. Due to Covid 19 related reasons there was a laxity from the part of the opposite party and delivery of services was delayed. The opposite party postponed the commencement of the work by saying lame excuses and delayed the work inordinately. Certain jobs were removed from the original purchase order and certain additional works were given in their place like interior design and furnishing of new bed room and supply, fixing etc of a modular kitchen. The complainant further states that on 22.04.2021 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the opposite party and the following works were finally agreed.
- Beam and border false ceiling works in living room and family living room with 100% Gurgen Marine Ply, Premium Veneer with MS tube and wood frame work in fully finished form, shape and shade as approved by the Complainant for Rs.225000/-
- 2 Main Doors and 7 windows border panelling with solid country wood in fully finished form, shape and shade as approved by the complainant for Rs.100000/-.
- Gypsum false ceiling of the specified area @Rs.70/- square feet.
- Bed Room design and furnishing and supplying pre fabricated modular kitchen as per the specification, design and rates agreed by both the parties for Rs.3,29,000/-.
After much persuasion and cajoling, the opposite party commenced his jobs by mid May 2021 with two carpenters. The skeleton/carcase preparation and fixing of basic ply wood cum veneer parts for ceiling and fixing of raw country wood panels for the windows/doors borders were done by the first week of June 2021. He stopped the works there. When asked why the final touch and polishing is not done, the opposite party, though objected initially, assured the complainant that the same will be done by him only after the additional works of bed room furnishing and modular kitchen works were completed. He wanted another advance of Rs.3,00,000/- towards purchase of materials of the additional works and polishing materials. Since the complainant thought that the said amount is a little excess one under the given pace and status of work and relying on the words of the opposite party for finishing the original works compete in all respects as per the 3 D drawings, he gave another rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party on 28.06.2021.
After receiving the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- the opposite party turned topsy-turvy on his commitments and told the complainant that since final polishing works on the wood and wood based products is not undertake the said job by himself. He also communicated to the complainant on 5th July 2021 that he was not interested to carry out the additional works of bed room furnishing and that he would do the modular kitchen works only with the materials as deemed fit by himself and not as per the agreed specifications.
With an ulterior motive of provoking the complainant to pre-close the works to is advantage, the opposite party passed certain derogatory remarks against the complainant casting aspiration on his integrity. The complainant succumbed to his tactics and suggested to pre-close the order as he lost confidence in the opposite party. The parties thus agreed to pre-close the purchase order after exchanging the final statement of accounts for full and final settlement and refunding the excess amount received from the complainant.
Accordingly the complainant forwarded his final statement of accounts as per the terms and conditions of the purchase order on 06.07.2021 in which he claimed a refund of Rs.1,00,000/- which the opposite party received from the complainant as excess advance payment. The complainant had deducted an amount of Rs.54,800/- towards the notional cost of rectification of the deficiencies of the products and services delivered by the opposite party.
The opposite party as usual took his own time to give his final statement of accounts which he gave to the complainant on 12.07.2021. According to his statement of accounts, he admits an amount of Rs.38,250/- after charging full value of the yet to be finally finished products and services and charging additional amount of Rs.6,000/- towards supply of certain floor protection materials which he laid prior to the commencement .
Because of the failure to carry out the work from the side of the opposite party causing serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant had approached the Commission praying for issuing direction to the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.60,800/- along with other reliefs.
2) Notice
Eventhough the notice was served to the opposite party, the opposite party had not appeared and filed version in time. Hence the opposite party was made ex-parte by the Commission. The complainant had filed Exbt.A1 to A7 and report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as C1.
3) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
- Point No (i)
On going through the evidences produced from the side of the complainant, it can be seen from Exbt.A1 that the complainant and the opposite party had engaged into an agreement for Rs.65,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five lakh Fifty thousand only) as alleged by the complainant. Exbt.A2 is the photographs of 3D design of wooden ceiling. Exbt.A3 is bills for the works done. Exbt.A4 is details of interior decorations works. Exbt.A5 is copy of agreement. Exbt.A6 is reply notice. Exbt.A7 is the photographs showing stage of work. Exbt.A8 is copy of letter. Opposite party is ex-parte and there is no evidence from his side.
On verification of Exbt.C1 report of Expert Commissioner appointed by the Commission it can be seen as follows:
- The products and services delivered by the opposite party suffered from the deficiencies complained by the petitioner.
- As per the industry practice, final finishing of the similar in-situ fitted wood based products is part of the agreement unless otherwise specifically negated and therefore the opposite party failed in complying with the terms and conditions of the impugned agreement.
- The petitioner incurred the reduced but admitted extra cost of Rs.54,880/- for rectification of the deficiencies in the said products and services caused by the failure of the opposite party.
- The opposite party is bound to give back to the petitioner the excess amount of rs.62,880/- including the said additional cost which the opposite party had unduly received from the petitioner.
On going through an agreement, evidences produced from the side of the complainant, along with report of the Expert Commissioner, it can be seen that the complainant had to afford serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party and that the opposite party had not even appeared before the Commission inspite of receiving notice and based on the report of the Expert Commissioner the complainant had lost an amount of Rs.62,880/- which the opposite party is liable to pay. Hence the following orders are issued.
O R D E R
- The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.60,800/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Eight hundred only) to the complainant being the excess amount charged by the opposite party from the complainant.
- The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party and also for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
- An amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid as cost of the proceedings to the complainant
All the amount shall be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) (ii) and (iii) above shall attract interest @ 7.25% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 8th day of February 2024.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt.A1 is the copy of agreement between the complainant and the
opposite party
Exbt.A2 is the photographs of 3D design of wooden ceiling.
Exbt.A3 is bills for the works done.
Exbt.A4 is details of interior decorations works.
Exbt.A5 is copy of agreement.
Exbt.A6 is reply notice.
Exbt.A7 is the photographs showing stage of work.
Exbt.A8 is copy of letter.
Date of despatch :
By Hand :: By Post
uk/
