DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 25^th day of April, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 26/05/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 227/2018

COMPLAINANT

M. Krishna Prasad, XVI/131B, Devaguptan, Vidhya Nagar, Vrindavanam Road, Companypady, Thaikkattukara P.O., Aluva 683506.

(Rep. by Adv. Simon Thomas, Sub Jail Road, Aluva)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

M/s. Bethanya Builders & Interiors, Rep. by Mervin S. Raj, ARA-A-3, Kunnapuzha, Thirumala, Trivandrum 32.

(Rep. by Adv. A.S. Dileep & Suseela Dileep, Das Associates, 2^nd Floor, Kochaneth Building, Near St. Martin Church, Palarivattom P.O., Cochin682025)

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

The complainant states that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party for an interior furnishing work for a total cost of Rs.8,60,000/- on 04/10/2017. The work was agreed to be completed in 25 to 30 working days with effect from 19/12/2017. The complainant paid the first payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the opposite party in three names ie. Sunil, Plywood Park, Trivandrum Rs.1,50,000/-, Saji, Trivandrum Rs.1,00,000/-, Laali K.R. Rs.50,000/- which was paid as per the direction of the opposite party. complainant again made payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the opposite party on 05/01/2018 in the name of three persons namely Sunil, Saji and Manolin S. Raj. 3^rd instalment of Rs.1,30,000/- in the name Saji on 31/01/2018 and Rs.30,000/- in the name of Laaly K.R. was also paid by the complainant. The opposite party agreed to complete the work by 04/02/2018. Complainant had paid a total of Rs.7,60,000/- to the opposite party thereafter in 12/03/2018 the opposite party sent a mail to the complainant demanding Rs.70,000/- and the balance of Rs.25,000/- after finishing the work. Since then the half of the work was not completed the complainant states that he had to contact the opposite party on many times for completing the work. Bu the opposite party had not adhered to the demand of the complainant. The complainant had suffered lot of mental strain and hardships due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service he had undergone from the side of opposite party and therefore approached the Commission praying for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from the Commission opposite party appeared and filed their version.

The opposite parties in their version contented that they are looking for an opportunity to have a suitable entry for their business in and around Ernakulam, considering the request from the complainant opposite party had furnished an estimate dated 04/10/2017 in which the total cost of the work to be undertaken was Rs.8,60,000/-. Despite quoting rock bottom estimated cost, the complainant and his daughter kept on demanding further reduction in the estimated cost, opposite party suggested the complainant to fetch competitive quotations from other interior workers and agencies and to award the work to any of them if the complainant found that the amounts quoted by them was below the cost offered by the opposite party. At last the complainant agreed to the price quoted by the opposite party. Complainant had paid Rs.7,60,000/- in three instalments. But the payments were not prompt or as per the schedule of payments emphasized in the agreement but were delayed by days. The payment schedule incorporated in the terms of the contract sent by mail to the complainant, were time bound and so specific that there had no occasion or room for any confusion as to the promptness with which the payments were to be made. The consequence of delayed payment would not be as little or short as the delay itself, but would be with wider implication and differential progression. The complainant states that the time bound and one ought to have been finished within 25 to 30 days from commencement, if the payments due from the complainant is delayed for almost a month in the case of part payments and no payment at all of the finishing works. The opposite party states that they demanded through e-mail dated 12/03/2015 payment of Rs.70,000/- towards the payments due under the agreement and balance amount of Rs.25,000/- due as per the original contract could be deferred till the completion of the work and settlement of accounts thereafter. At the instruction of the complainant, the opposite party had to oblige and effect various changes and modifications in the item of works undertaken as per the estimate. Apart from these, there were certain additional works also carried out at the insistence of the complainant. The additional cost incurred by the opposite party towards these modifications and additional works is Rs.1,25,000/- which represents only the actual costs without any element of profit. These works were undertaken on the specific understanding that the complainant would recoup the cost incurred for the same before or at the time of settlement of accounts. The only reason for cessation of the work before completion is the unreasonable withholding and unjust demands by the complainant to get the works completed without pay for the service already rendered and received. The opposite party prays to be dismissed the complainant in view of the above.

The complainant had produced 9 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A9. Deposition of PW1 and PW2 were taken. Opposite parties do not have produced any documentary evidence. An Expert Commissioner was appointed in this case to assess the quantum of work done by the opposite party. 

Exbt. A1 is the copy of Estimate for interior work, Exbt. A2 is the copy of receipt, Exbt. A3 is the copy of e-mail communication, Exbt. A4 is the copy of receipt, Exbt. A5 is the copy of e-mail communication, Exbt. A6 is the copy of lawyer notice, Exbt. A7 is the copy of reply letter issued by the opposite party, Exbt. A8 is the copy of Advocate Commission Report, Exbt. A9 is the copy of Expert Commission Report.

From the above documents and also from the facts and figures submitted by both sides the Commission has to verify the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

On going through the complaint, version and evidence produced by either sides it can be seen that the complainant had entrusted the interior work of his house to the opposite party who had not completed the work as promised by him as per agreement within the time. The opposite party stated that the work has been completed as agreed each other. In order to ascertain the authenticity and genuinity of the claim of the complainant and the opposite party the Commission appointed an Expert Commissioner who had reported as follows:

“Ground Floor:

1. Wardrobe

1. As per the proposed quotation, the wardrobe was supposed to be made in good quality HDF with teak veneer finish. Instead, the same has partially been finished in teak veneer finish. The rest has been done in HDF and painted.
2. The wardrobe does not have any necessary locks, handing rods etc.
3. One shutter has not been fixed.
4. The alignment of shutters are not proper.
5. The switchboard cover for switchboard at the study table attached to the wardrobe is not fixed

2. Dressing Unit

1. Mirror for the dressing unit is not fixed
2. The dressing unit was supposed to be done in good quality HDF with teak veneer finish but instead has been done in HDF and painted.

3. Crockery unit

1. Glass for the doors (3Nos.) & Glass partition for the 2 shelves are not fixed.
2. Item does not have a support on the floor as per the design. The unit does not have the strength to carry granite & wash basin due to the lack of skirting on the floor.

4. Stair case bottom storage

1. Though veneer finishing is doe partially, it is only pained and is not polished
2. LED spotlights (2 Nos.) are not fixed though the provision for the same is provided.

5. Pooja room

1. As per the quotation the pooja unit was supposed to be with teak panelling and HDF with spotlights. Instead the item is made with HDF and has been given teak veneer finish
2. Spotlights are not fixed through the provision is given for 6 spotlights.

6. Modular kitchen

1. Kitchen finished with pre laminated MDF and Multi wood
2. Handles are not fixed for kitchen cabinet shutters
3. Glass tray, plate tray, dip tray are not fixed in the cabinet.
4. As per the design, there is a supporting pole for overhead unit, which is not fixed which increases the possibility of shattering down the entire cabinet.
5. Chimney duct covering unit as per the design is not fixed.

7. Living room

1. Spotlights has not been fixed in panelling works
2. False ceiling done in living room with veneer finish (44.5 rft). Spotlights not fixed on it though provision has been provided.

First Floor

1. TV Unit

1. No provision has been given for properly concealing the wires like in any modern TV unit
2. The item is not of proper size as per the given quotation

2. Dressing unit-Master bedroom & Bedroom 2

1. Mirror for the dressing unit is not fixed
2. The dressing unit was supposed to be done in good quality HDF with teak veneer finish but instead, has been done in HDF and painted

3. Wardrobe-Master bedroom

1. As per the proposed quotation, the wardrobe was supposed to be made in good quality HDF with teak veneer finish. Instead, the same has partially has been finished in teak veneer finish. The rest has been done in HDF and painted.
2. The wardrobe does not have any necessary locks, handing rods etc.
3. The alignments of shutters are not proper
4. The switchboard cover for switchboard at the study table attached to the wardrobe is not fixed.

4. Loose furniture and complimentary items

The following loose furniture mentioned in the quotation has not been supplied

1. Queen size cot with bottom storage and side table with teak wood and HDF (mattress is not included) – 2 No.s
2. Swing cot using good quality Mahagony wood with chain – 1 No.s
3. 6 seater for Living Area using good quality teak wood and cushion top, side table (3 seater, 2 seater and 1 seater) – 1 Nos.

The following complimentary items mentioned in the quotation has not been supplied

1. Swing chair using mahagony wood – 1 No.
2. Teack wood teepoy using glass top – 1 No.
3. Custom made shoe rack – 1 No.

ESTIMATION OF THE DAMAGES

The estimated cost of damages calculated based the quotation No. BB10925 dated 04/10/2017 is as below:

CONCLUSION

          Final assessment on this particular case is that, the whole work does not meet the required standards. The work has not been completed and lacks professionalism in each and every aspect. Upon scrutiny, it is observed that the measurements are inaccurate which has eventually affected the space, convenience, outlook and utility of the final outcome.”

          The Commission examined all the documents filed by both sides and Commission report. The objection on the report of the Expert Commissioner filed by the opposite party also thoroughly verified. The complainant had proved Point No. 1 in his favour. Since the Point No. (1) proved in favour of the complainant Point No. (2) and (3) decided accordingly. Hence the following orders are issued.

1. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.3,32,580/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty two thousand five hundred eighty only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

No compensation is ordered considering the nature of the case.

The opposite party shall to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25^th day of April, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of Estimate for interior work

Exbt. A2:    Copy of receipt

Exbt. A3:    Copy of e-mail communication

Exbt. A4:    Copy of receipt

Exbt. A5:    Copy of e-mail communication

Exbt. A6:    Copy of lawyer notice

Exbt. A7:    Copy of reply letter issued by the opposite party

Exbt. A8:    Copy of Advocate Commission Report

Exbt. A9:    Copy of Expert Commission Report

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Deposition

PW1: M. Krishna Prasad

DW1:          Vishnu Vidhyadharan

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                   

kp/

CC No. 227/2018

Order Date: 25/04/2024/12/2023