Date of Filing:16.10.2015

Date of Disposal:29.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.S.NOOLA, MEMBER

1. The complaint was filed in line with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The complainant requests that this Commission order the opposite party (hereafter referred to as op) to pay Rs.1,90,000/- plus 12.5  percent interest on a yearly basis. Furthermore, to order the payment of Rs.5,000/- in damages for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- in damages for the filing of the current proceedings, etc.

2. The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant called the OP to discuss house renovations. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.20,000/- to start the design work, and the designs and materials were concluded on September 6, 2015, with the opposite party billing Rs.4,29,298/- for the service. The complainant made a 50% payment to the OP on the same day, totaling Rs.2,14,650/-. Following multiple follow-ups, the OP hired a false ceiling provider to do the framing on September 19, 2015. The op had arranged for a temporary electrician, who started on September 24, 2015, and a cash payment of Rs 10,000/- was made in advance for the entire electrical work. After a 5-day delay, just the carcass material for the kids study table, wardrobe, and shore rack TV unit was delivered to the site on October 1, 2015, rather than the whole material as agreed upon. Again, the OP demanded 40% of the total quote amount and threatened to stop working immediately if not paid. As a result, the complainant had to pay an extra Rs.70,000/-. Minor carpentry and TV unit rework were completed at the site on October 5, 2015. The OP sought 40% once more, but the complainant refused to pay because the entire material wasn't yet provided to the site. The complainant produced a list of ten not delivered products. On October 7, 2015, the OP sent an email requesting Rs.88,245/- in payment, without which no further action would be taken. The complainant emailed and called the OP several times to request that the work be finished.

3. The opposite party claims that the Complainant's remedy is untenable. The complaint must be dismissed because the term "deficiency of service" is not defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, as the complainant claims.

4. The complainant desired to renovate his home in Marathahalli, Bangalore. Following a discussion, the OP representative issued an email on 05.08.2015 stating specifically that the entire on-site work will take 40 to 50 days (25-30 days for woodwork fabrication and 15-20 days for installation).  According to the email, the time estimate is based on electricity availability and the complainant obtaining working permissions in the flat to work from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. six days a week without interruption. "Power availability will be a main criteria in the execution time as there will be significant delays if there are frequent power outages as all components are assembled with power tools," the email stated again.

5. The project's commercials are clearly split into design and execution fees in the email dated May 8, 2015. The project execution fee is divided into three installments: 50% in advance for the start of work; 40% upon arrival of wood material on site, framing of the false ceiling, and completion of electrical work in the false ceiling; and 10% upon completion of all work. Following additional discussions with the complainant, the OP issued a final estimate on September 8, 2015, which the complainant attached as Annexure I. The complainant was given drawings as well as a quote. After the complainant authorized the quote in its entirety, the OP began working in the flat. "Electrical is not included," the quotation clearly reads. This demonstrates that the complainant and the OP have a new electrical work contract.  Following that, the complaint requested the OP if they could get him an electrician, and the OP gave him the names of some contacts while fully informing him that the job of electrical work was not within the scope of the OP's business, as stated explicitly in the quote.

6. The complainant was continually interfering with the OP and the construction workers. Throughout the work, the complainant interrupted.  The plaintiff and his wife began attacking OP representatives verbally.   The OP had reservations and concerns regarding the complainant's ability to pay.  In addition, the complainant and his wife compelled the OP and his wife to work in hazardous conditions. According to the OP, the carcass material for the kids study No. 22—tables, closets, racks, and TVs—had been supplied and installed in the premises as of 01.10.2015. The only thing that remained were the shutters. The walls were still in the process of being painted. Document No. 2 has photographs of the same. The complainant has cleverly masked the photographs he produced without providing the correct facts before this forum, as he is claiming the relief of a refund of the entire amount paid by him thus far, fully aware that almost the entire work has been completed with only a few days of work remaining. The complainant was advised on October 1, 2015, that the 40% payment was due when the remaining wood material arrived, with a tentative date of October 6, 2015.On October 6, 2015, the complainant was not there when the last items to be placed arrived at the apartment entrance. The OP then texted the complainant that if the payment was not paid, they would leave the site. The next day, the complainant made false accusations in an email and SMS (Document No. 3).

7. Because the majority of the woodwork (including installation) had been completed, and only minor issues such as shutters for each of them remained (which the OP representatives had delivered to the apartment complex on October 6, 2015, and taken back because the complainant refused to pay).The OP still has the remaining supplies and can complete the mission (photos in Document No. 4). The task can be finished in a matter of days.

8. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?

2. What order?

9. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Negative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1:-   The complainant entrusted the opposite party with the renovation of his home. The op offered a cost of Rs.4,29,298/- for the work. According to the complainant, on September 6, 2015, once the design and materials were finalized, 50% of the total quoted cost, or Rs.2,14,650/-, was paid to the OP. Furthermore, two cheques for Rs.97,000/-, Rs.83,000/-, and a cash payment of Rs.14,650/- were issued. For the electrical work, a cash payment of Rs.10,000/- was made separately. The complainant claims that the OP requested 40% of the agreed-upon sum despite the fact that the op had failed to produce 10 items (a list of ten items) as per the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the OP wanted Rs.88,245/-, without which she will not proceed. In this regard, the complainant has provided pictures of the work completed. The OP has not completed the work, and the complainant was subjected to a great deal of mental torture and harassment. He is concerned about little children being injured by unfinished carpentry and electrical work because they live in the same house.

11.   The opposite party, in refuting the complainant's allegations, claims that in a mail dated August 5, 2015, it was clearly stated that the total work on site would take between 42 and 50 days. According to the content, the quote was fully and totally acknowledged by the complainant, and it is clearly stated that "electrical work is not included." On the complainant's request, the OP provided only the contact number for the electrical work. According to the OP, the complainant began interfering with the op's and its staff' work on site on a frequent basis. It is also claimed that the OP reps were sometimes forced to work in dangerous situations to push their will on them. The op submits that on 1.10.2015, the carcass material for the kid’s study tables, wardrobe, shoe rack, and tv unit were installed in the premises and that only the shutters of the same were yet to be delivered because the premises' walls were being painted. The OP claims to have incurred monetary losses.

12.  The complainant claims that he paid Rs.2,14,650/- on September 6, 2015, which is 50% of the total work. And on email dated 8.10.2015 maintains that has paid overall sum of Rs.2,94,650/- for which the opposite party says in his email dated 10th August 2015 that a balance amount of Rs.80,000/- needs to be paid and after receiving the payment the assignment will move forward. According to the opposite party, the amount of Rs.1,58,245/- represents 40% of the job (the second leg of payment). Both parties are unresolved about the total cost of the project, total payments received by the opposite party, and the balance amount to be paid to the opposite party. Similarly, there is no consensus on the amount of work completed, the value of work completed, and the balance of work to be completed. Neither the complainant nor opposite Parties files no documentation or report to prove that they have completed the work to the tune of the amount received and the balance of work, which amounts to Rs.88,245/- plus 10% of the contract work.  The issues raised on the complaint relate to the interpretation of implementation of the agreed termes and conditions which are of contractual  nature. The work done and the work to be done has no comparison in the  case of  their complaint. With this above observation the complaint is dismissed. As a result, we have negative in aswer to this question.

13. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No costs.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th   April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

         MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Hitesh-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OPby way of affidavit:

Ms.Priya Krishnamurthy, Who being the Authorized

signatory of OP

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*