18th day of December 2024
CC 141/20 filed on 17/02/2020
Complainants : 1) St. John’s Forane Church, Parappur Desom,
Tholoor Village, Thrissur.
Rep. by Reverent Father Johnson Anthikkad.
2) St. John’s Forane Church, Parappur Desom,
Tholoor Village, Thrissur. Rep. by Trustee,
Joseph Antony, Chittilappilly Kunnath House,
Parappur Desom, Tholoor Village, Parappur Post,
Thrissur – 680 552.
3) St. John’s Forane Church, Parappur Desom,
Tholoor Village, Thrissur. Rep. by Trustee
Sunny P.J., Puthoor House, Parappur Desom,
Tholoor Village, Parappur Post, Thrissur – 680 552.
4) St. John’s Forane Church, Parappur Desom,
Tholoor Village, Thrissur. Rep. by Trustee,
Johnson Paul, Kundukulangara House,
Parappur Desom, Tholoor Village, Parappur Post,
Thrissur – 680 552.
(By Adv. Mary Flinto E.V., Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Blue Star Elavator, Velathanuzhathil Complex,
Kallissery Post, Chengannur, Alappuzha – 689 124.
2) Jaxon Elavators, Regd. Office : No.742,
Velathanuzhathil Complex, Kallissery Post,
Chengannur, Alappuzha – 689 124.
3) Jose, S/o Kizhakke Charuvil Abraham, Director,
Jaxon Elevators, Regd. Office : No. 742,
Velathanuzhathil Complex, Kallissery Post,
Chengannur, Alappuzha – 689 912.
4) Annamma Jose, Director, Jaxon Elavators,
Regd. Office : No. 742, Velathanuzhathil Complex,
Kallissery Post, Chengannur, Alappuzha – 689 912.
(OP 1 to 4 Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
1. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The complainant, a Parish Church represented by its Vicar and trustees, sought to install an elevator in a school under its administration. For this, they approached the first opposite-party (OP 1) company, where the third and fourth opposite parties (OP 3 & OP 4) were directors of the OP 2 company also. On July 7, 2017, the opposite parties offered to install a six-passenger, 0.7-meter-per-second MRL elevator with an auto door for ₹7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh fifty thousand only). They claimed to have three years of experience and an impressive portfolio of clients, including VIP hotels and showrooms. The OP 3 promised the elevator would be installed within 45 days of receiving the advance payment.
Relying on this assurance, the complainant paid ₹5.5 lakh on various dates. Even after the payments, the opposite parties failed to initiate or complete the elevator installation. After several attempts by the complainants to resolve the issue, the OP 3 sent a letter on March 29, 2018, using the 2nd OP’s letterhead but including the 1st OP's address and email. The letter stated that the work had been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances and would be completed by April 30, 2018. However, the installation remained incomplete despite this assurance, with essential components such as the lift cable, door, and rope still missing.
The complainant then issued a legal notice to all the OPs, which was returned un-served as claimed. The opposite parties' failure to fulfil their obligations led to financial and mental distress for the complainants and significant inconvenience for the school's staff and students. The complainants requests reimbursement of ₹5.5 lakh with 12% interest p.a. from March 29, 2018, compensation of ₹3 lakh for mental anguish and financial loss, and ₹10,000 for legal costs.
2. On receiving the complaint, proper notice was sent to the opposite parties. As the notice to OP 3 returned un-served stating left, paper publication was ordered. The complainant duly complied the order accordingly. The opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission or file a version. Hence, the opposite parties were set as ex-parte, and the case was posted for the complainant's evidence.
3. When the case came for evidence, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in which they affirmed and explained all the averments in tune with the complaint. The complainant produced eleven document marked as Exts. A1 to A11. Ext. A1 is the Order No. 357/2023 dtd. 02/02/2023, issued by the Archdiocese of Thrissur, appointing Father Sebi Puthur as the current vicar of the first complainant church. Ext. A2 is the Order No. 1645/2023 dtd. 11/08/23 issued by Archdiacese of Thrissur for the appointment of ‘Kaikkaran’for the year 2022-23. Ext. A3 is the Certificate directing Mr. Glunni P.A., to appear and give evidence in CC 141/2020 before the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the 1st complainant church. Ext. A4 is the Offer letter given by the 1st opposite party company to the complainants (Original). Ext. A5 is the letter dtd. 29/03/18 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants (Original). Ext. A6 is the Voucher No. 566, dtd. 25/07/17 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by St. John’s Higher Secondary School Parappur in favour of 1st opposite party company (Original). Ext. A7 is the Voucher No.545 dtd. 07/07/17 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by St. John’s Higher Secondary School Parappur in favour of 1st opposite party company (Original). Ext. A8 is the copy of Statement of Account of 1st complainant for the period 12/09/17 to 16/11/17 issued by CSB Bank Ltd. Ext. A9 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 05/07/2019 sent by the complainants’ counsel to the opposite parties. Ext. A10 (3 in Nos.) are the postal receipts. Ext. A11 (1), (2) & (3) are the lawyer notices returned with postal endorsement “Not known, RTS”. The Expert Report produced is marked as C1.
4. The Commission reviewed the affidavit's contents and examined the documents produced. After examining the evidence provided by the complainant and the findings of the Expert Report (C1), it has become clear that the opposite parties failed to fulfill their contractual obligations and engaged in practices that constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Firstly, the offer letter (Exhibit A4) substantiates the complainant's claims regarding assurances made by the opposite parties. The letter clearly specifies the technical details of the elevator to be installed, the service terms, and payment conditions provided to the complainant. The opposite parties explicitly represented themselves as experienced professionals capable of fulfilling the contract, with promises of commitment and a reputable record. However, the failure to complete the installation contradicts these assurances, raising significant concerns regarding their competence and intentions in securing this contract.
Further examination reveals that the documentation was issued under the name "Blue Star Elevators" without mention of the OP 2 company's name. Such an omission strongly indicates an intention to mislead the complainant by obscuring the true legal entity responsible for the service. Exhibit A5, a letter signed by the OP 3, acknowledges the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the delay. However, this letter appears on a different seal and letterhead than previously used by the opposite parties. Such inconsistencies raise further doubts about the reliability of the opposite parties and suggest potential irregularities in how they conduct business and communicate with clients. This lack of transparency casts doubt on the legitimacy of the business entity the complainant was dealing with. As a result, adverse inference is taken against the opposite parties for misrepresentation and failure to disclose their corporate identity lacking accountability and reliability in their business practices.
Additionally, Exhibits A6, A7, and A8 confirm that the complainant made payments totaling ₹5.5 lakh in good faith, relying on the commitments made by the opposite parties. Despite receiving this substantial payment, the opposite parties have neglected their contractual duty to complete the elevator installation. This failure clearly demonstrates deficient service and a breach of trust that has caused financial and operational inconvenience to the complainant.
Most significantly, the Expert Report (C1) provides a comprehensive analysis of the elevator's incomplete and dysfunctional state. The report states that all three elevator doors are unopenable, making it impossible to inspect the interior or assess the extent of the work left unfinished. The expert found that due to a mismatch in parts, it would be challenging for another company to complete the installation. Therefore, the only viable solution is to install a new elevator with a high projected cost. This cost projection underscores the financial burden placed on the complainant due to the opposite parties' negligence. Furthermore, the expert's findings confirm that the elevator, as currently installed, is entirely unusable and does not serve its intended purpose, directly contradicting the opposite parties' assurances.
Further, the Opposite Parties had not cared to enter an appearance or file the written version before the Commission. No contra evidence from the part of OPs. The OP's failure to submit their written version amounts to an admission of allegations levelled against them by the complainant.
In light of these findings, it is evident that the opposite parties failed to fulfil their obligations and caused considerable financial and mental anguish to the complainant. Their conduct reflects a breach of trust and shows a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, due to the actions of the opposite parties, the complainant has experienced significant financial loss and emotional distress, warranting compensation for this aspect, and we are inclined to allow this complaint.
5. In the result, the complaint is allowed, and the opposite parties are directed to jointly and severally ;
- reimburse to the complainant the amount of ₹5,50,000 (Rupees Five lakh fifty thousand only) with an interest rate of 12% per annum from March 29, 2018 until the date of realization,
- compensate the complainant with ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) for mental anguish and financial loss suffered due to their negligence and deficient service, and
- pay the complainant a sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the complaint.
The order shall be complied within one month of receiving the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to an additional 12% interest per annum from the date of the order, for the sum towards compensation and cost, as well.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 18th day of December 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainants’ Exhibits :
Ext. A1 Order No. 357/2023 dtd. 02/02/2023, issued by the Archdiocese of
Thrissur, appointing Father Sebi Puthur as the current vicar of the first
complainant church.
Ext. A2 Order No. 1645/2023 dtd. 11/08/23 issued by Archdiacese of Thrissur
for the appointment of ‘Kaikkaran’for the year 2022-23.
Ext. A3 Certificate directing Mr. Glunni P.A., to appear and give evidence in
CC 141/2020 before the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the 1st complainant
church.
Ext. A4 Offer letter given by the 1st opposite party company to the complainants
(Original).
Ext. A5 letter dtd. 29/03/18 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants
(Original).
Ext. A6 Voucher No. 566, dtd. 25/07/17 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by St. John’s
Higher Secondary School Parappur in favour of 1st opposite party
company (Original).
Ext. A7 Voucher No.545 dtd. 07/07/17 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by St. John’s
Higher Secondary School Parappur in favour of 1st opposite party
company (Original).
Ext. A8 copy of Statement of Account of 1st complainant for the period
12/09/17 to 16/11/17 issued by CSB Bank Ltd.
Ext. A9 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 05/07/2019 sent by the complainants’
counsel to the opposite parties.
Ext. A10 (3 in Nos.) are the postal receipts.
Ext. A11 (1), (2) & (3) are the lawyer notices returned with postal endorsement
“Not known, RTS”.
Ext. C1 Expert Commissioner’s Report
Id/-
President
