Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/128/2015

Amar Partap Singh Sidhu, Proprietor of We Design Interior Contractor & Designer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu - Opp.Party(s)

P.C.Koundal, Adv.

26 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	128 of 2015
Date of Institution	04.06.2015
Date of Decision	26.06.2015

Amar Partap Singh Sidhu, Proprietor of “We Design Interior Contractor & Designer”, r/o H.No.3335, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

                                Versus

1. Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu
2. Manpreet Sidhu s/o Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu

Both residents of H.No.1561, Pushpak Society, Sector-49, Chandigarh.

                        …..Respondents No.1 & 2/Complainants.

3.        Ms. Arti C/o Amar Pratap Singh Sidhu, Proprietor of “We Design Interior Contractor & Designer”, r/o H.No.3335, sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2/Performa respondent.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate alongwith Sh.P.C.Koundal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Vikram Tandon, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Service of respondent No.3 already dispensed with vide order dated 05.06.2015.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.209 of 2014, filed by the complainants, qua Opposite Party No.1, with the following directions:-

“ 14.    For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed qua OP-1. OP-1 is directed as under :-

i)      To refund half of the amount of Rs.1,34,000/- i.e. Rs.67,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 15.1.2014 till actual realization by the complainants.

ii)     To make payment of compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony.

iii)    To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses.

15.          This order be complied with by OP-1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which he shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.

16.          The complaint qua OP-2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. “

 2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainants approached the Opposite Parties for getting the front room of their house renovated, its interior designed and decorated. In response, Sh.Amar Partap Singh Sidhu, Proprietor of WE DESIGN alongwith his Assistant Ms.Aarti visited the house of the complainants. It was stated that after discussions regarding jobs to be done, the Opposite Parties submitted the drawings (Annexure C-1) of the proposed renovation.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were able to lure the complainants to enter into an Agreement dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure C-2) for carrying out the work and accepting the terms and conditions at a cost of Rs.1,73,000/-.  It was further stated that as per the Agreement, the work was to be completed in four weeks and payments were to be made in four installments.  Accordingly, the complainants gave cheque No.564301 dated 05.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.60,550/- to the Opposite Parties, which was duly encashed by them. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties commenced the work on 08.12.2013 and as per the Agreement, the same was to be completed latest by 08.01.2014, but the complainants observed that the pace of work was not only slow but also lacked the requisite quality of workmanship and there was no supervision either by Opposite Party No.1 or his Assistant Ms.Aarti.  However, Mr.Amar Partap Singh (Opposite Party No.1) by falsely promising to step up the pace of work and also to improve the quality of the same, under his own supervision, collected the second installment of Rs.51,900/- vide cheque dated 22.12.2013 (Annexure C-4), which was duly encashed. Copy of the statement of account is Annexure C-5. It was further stated that at the time of making the payment of second installment, the complainants pointed out to the Opposite Parties that they had already received Rs.1.12 lacs, though the work done was only about 15%.  The Opposite Parties assured that sitting sofa, TV panel partitions, centre table, side table and paint base work would be completed by 27.12.2013 positively but they failed to do so. 

3.             It was further stated that complainant No.2 left India for going abroad on 03.01.2014 and soon thereafter, the Opposite Parties started visiting complainant No.1 and his wife and harassing them to release the third installment of payment, although the work completed was only about 35% and further submitted an undertaking dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure C-6) to complete the work positively by 15.01.2014. It was further stated that complainant No.1, in good faith, paid an amount of Rs.21,625/- to the Opposite Parties vide cheque dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure C-7). Thereafter, the Opposite Parties discontinued the work of renovation and disappeared. They even stopped answering the phone calls of the complainants.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties despite having received Rs.1,34,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.1,73,000/- failed to complete the work, in spite of several visits.

4.         Legal notice dated 19.02.2014 was sent to the Opposite Parties, which was received back unserved with the remarks “Addressee out of station”. Thereafter, again the said notice was sent on 01.03.2014 but it was received back unserved with the remarks “Addressee was out of station”. Thereafter, the legal notice was sent by the Counsel for the complainants through email to Opposite Party No.1, on 03.03.2014 (Annexure C-12). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice but to no avail.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.
5.         In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, took up a number of preliminary objections, including that the complainants had not approached the Forum with clean hands and, as such, the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties.   It was admitted that Annexure C-1 i.e. drawing sketches were shown by Opposite Party No.1 to complainant No.2. It was also admitted that the Renovation Agreement was executed between Opposite Party No.1 and complainant No.2 and as per the said Agreement, work was to be completed in four weeks. The allegation of the complainants was denied that the work was slow with poor quality of workmanship and there was no supervision. It was further stated that all the workers of Opposite Party No.1 being skilled workers and experts in their field 50% work was completed by him (Opposite Party No.1) in the second week, as per the Agreement.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 completed the work, as per the Agreement, in all respects.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 time and again requested complainant No.2, for payment of third installment and when Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of complainant No.2, his family members clearly told that they had no concern with the work, in question, and they had no knowledge about any such Agreement.  It was further stated that complainant No.2 only made half payment of the third installment i.e. Rs.21,625/- instead of Rs.43,250/- and, thus, breached the terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 completed 90% of the work, as per the Agreement.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, qua Opposite Party No.1, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

9.             Service of respondent No.3, who was Opposite Party No.2 in the District Forum, was dispensed with vide order dated 05.06.2015 passed by this Commission, as the complaint against her was dismissed by the District Forum.

10.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/complainants, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

11.           The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that the complaint filed by respondent No.1, was not signed by respondent No.2 – Manpreet Sidhu, with whom the appellant entered into an Agreement and he had not produced any document by which he was authorized by respondent No.2 nor furnished any power of attorney given by him to file the complaint before the District Forum. He further submitted that the Agreement bore no specific date of completion of work and there was only condition regarding the payment of instalments, which were not paid as per the Agreement by Mr.Manpreet Sidhu and, therefore, respondent No.2 himself had breached the terms and conditions of the Agreement. He further denied the receipt of any legal notice. He further submitted that as per the pleadings 35% work of the complainants was completed by the appellant, on the other hand, Dr.Inderpal Singh Sidhu himself admitted in his complaint to the SSP that 50% work was completed by the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant, before the District Forum, requested the complainants to return the equipments and as the same had been taken on rent at Rs.1000/- per day, which are still in possession of the respondents, but it did not appreciate this fact. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

12.           The Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/complainants, submitted that the complainants approached the Opposite Parties for getting front room of their house renovated, its interior designed and decorated, for which, the appellant entered into an Agreement dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure C-2) with complainant No.2 and agreed to carry out the work in the sum of Rs.1,73,000/-, out of which, they (complainants) paid an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- but after receipt of the said amount, he failed to complete the work, within time and discontinued the same, despite giving undertaking dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure C-6) . He prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.1.

13.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.

14.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in non completion of the work within stipulated time. Admittedly, Sh.Manpreet Sidhu, complainant No.2 is the son of complainant No.1 - Dr.Inderpal Singh Sidhu and they wanted to renovate their house, for which, they approached the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and, thereafter, Mr.Manpreet Sidhu (complainant No.2) entered into a Renovation Agreement (Annexure C-2) dated 03.12.2013 with the appellant, for a total consideration of Rs.1,73,000/-. A bare perusal of the said Agreement shows that the payment was to be made, as per the work progress in four installments i.e. 35% at commencement, 30% in 2^nd week from commencement, 25% in 3^rd week from commencement and final 10% after completion of the said work. The scope of work was also mentioned in the said Agreement. As per the statement of account (Annexure C-3), it is clear that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.60,550/- vide cheque No.564301 dated 05.12.2013, which was duly encashed by the appellant. Annexure C-5 is a copy of the Statement of Account. From this document, it is proved that the second installment of Rs.51,900/- was paid vide cheque No.584937 dated 22.12.2013. Rs.21,625/- were paid vide cheque No.584938 dated 06.01.2014. As such, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 received an amount of Rs.1,34,000/-, out of the total amount of Rs.1,73,000/-. Annexure C-6 is a copy of the Certificate/Undertaking, given by the appellant, which reads as under :-

“This is to specify that ‘We Design’ shall complete all the said work as specified in the agreement signed on 3^rd Dec 2013 between Mr.Manpreet Sidhu and Mr.Amar Pratap Singh Sidhu (Prop. Of We Design) regarding the renovation work (excluding the work that were decided after the agreement was signed) at 1561, Pushpac Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh by 15^th Jan 2014. “

 

From the afore-extracted document, it is proved that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 gave it in writing that he would complete all the work, as specified in the Agreement signed on 03.12.2013, by 15.01.2014 but the said work was not completed within the stipulated time frame.

15.           As per the plea taken by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, according to the contents of the complaint, only 30% of the work was completed, but as per complaint to the S.S.P (Exhibit O-1) and the comments posted by Sh.Manpreet Sidhu (Exhibit O-2), 50% work was completed till 11.01.2014 and, as such, they had not approached the District Forum with clean hands.  He also drew our attention to the report submitted by the appellant (Exhibit O-6), which shows that 90% of the work was completed. It is the admitted fact that the work was commenced on 08.12.2013 and as per the Agreement, it was to be completed in four weeks i.e. latest by 08.01.2014 but Opposite Party No.1 failed to complete the same. Even the appellant failed to produce on record any evidence, which could show the reasons for not completing the work within the time frame, after receipt of the huge amount of Rs.1,34,000/- from the complainants till 06.01.2014. It is proved that the pace of the work was very slow, due to which, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 gave an undertaking on 06.01.2014 (Annexure C-6) that he shall complete the remaining work by 15.01.2014 but the said work was not completed by 15.01.2014. Therefore, complainant No.1 filed a complaint (Exhibit O-1) with SSP, UT, Chandigarh on 15.01.2014, wherein, he alleged that suddenly his son went abroad to join his duty for urgent work and whole work was to be looked after by him and he had paid an amount of Rs.1,34,075/- towards the advance payment to Opposite Party No.1 but only 50% work had been done and Opposite Party No.1 had stopped work.  Though, the complainants in the complaint alleged that the work completed was only 35%, which was to be completed by 08.01.2014, yet since complainant No.1 himself admitted in the complaint dated 15.01.2014 to the SSP that only 50% work had been done and complainant No.2 also made a comment (Exhibit O-2) posted on We Design Interior’s timeline on 11.01.2014 that only 50% job was completed so far, therefore, we are of the opinion that District Forum rightly held that 50% of the work was completed till 11.01.2014. Moreover, the complainants filed photographs (Annexure C-8), which gave a glimpse of the pace of work by Opposite Party No.1 and clearly proved that Opposite Party No.1 discontinued the work of renovation and disappeared after taking the payment. Even the complainants also produced copy of the comments uploaded on 02.01.2014 on the website ‘just dial’ by one Ms.Sunita Ghosh, which showed that “We Design” were incompetent and unprofessional people because she hired them for renovation work for apartment in Zirakpur, Jaipuria Sunrise Greens and their work turned out to be substandard and on top of that they took advance from them and absconded. Thus, the comments of Ms.Sunita Ghosh also corroborated the allegations of the complainants that it was the habit of Opposite Party No.1 to leave his clients in lurch, without completing the renovation works of their apartments. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 produced its own report (Annexure OP-6), in accordance with which, 90% work was completed but neither the date was mentioned on the said report nor supported by an affidavit of Opposite Party No.1. So, the District Forum rightly held that there was no positive evidence to this effect on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, as to how much work was completed, by him till 15.01.2014 on which date complainant No.1 made a complaint against him to the SSP.  So, it is clearly proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 in non completing the work of the house of the complainants, within stipulated time.

16.           The allegation of the appellant that the complaint was not maintainable, as the same was only signed by complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 did not give any power of attorney or authority letter to file the complaint. The appellant further submitted that even the Renovation Agreement was signed only by complainant No.2 i.e. Manpreet Sidhu. It is, no doubt, true that the complaint on behalf of Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu and Shri Manpreet Sidhu had signed only by complainant No.1 and not by complainant No.2, but it is pertinent to note that the said complaint was filed by the Counsel, Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate, in whose favour, both the complainants i.e. Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu and Shri Manpreet Sidhu, executed a Vakalatnama, which was produced on record by the complainants. Moreoever, the affidavit of Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu also annexed with the complaint, in which, it was recorded that complainant No.1, Dr. Inderpal Singh Sidhu is 75 years old and resident of House No.1561, Pushpac Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh, while complainant No.2, Shri Manpreet Sidhu, son of complainant No.1 working and living in Bahrain and visited his parents frequently. It is also important to note that prior to the filing of the complaint, Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate sent a legal notice on behalf of both the complainants to the appellant but the same could not be served because the appellant was reported to be out of station and later on, the said legal notice was served upon the appellant through email on 03.03.2014. Apart from it, it is also noteworthy that complainant No.2 filed a rejoinder by way of affidavit in the complaint on 04.02.2015. So, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly held that the consumer complaint was not liable to be dismissed simply on this technical ground, that it was not signed by complainant No.2, as he (complainant No.2) duly authorised his Advocate, by giving Vakalatnama to him to file the complaint in his behalf also.

17.           The next point for consideration before us, is, as to whether, the District Forum rightly directed the appellant to refund half of the amount of Rs.1,34,000/- i.e. Rs.67,000/- to the complainant. The answer to this question, is in the negative. It is, no doubt, true that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.1,73,000/- for the renovation of their house, and the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, failed to complete the work within the specified time, given in the Agreement, despite several visits to the office of Opposite Party No.1. The legal notice was mailed to the email of the appellant by the Counsel for the complainants on 03.03.2014 (Annexure C-12), which was shown as message having been sent. So, it is presumed that the email message was served upon the appellant. In the said legal notice, it was specifically alleged that after receiving the amounts, Opposite Party No.1 had stopped the renovation work altogether and also withdrew his workmen from the house. It is not believable that the appellant being a businessman did not see his mails because in the era of computers/smart phones, anybody can keep in touch with his emails not only through computers but also on his/her smart phones.   After receipt of the said legal notice, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 did not give reply, which shows that he had nothing to say in his defence. So, we are of the opinion that the District Forum rightly held that Opposite Party No.1 completed only 50% of the work by 08.01.2014, though he was supposed to complete the work of the complainants by then and, thereafter, he discontinued the work of renovation and disappeared, despite receipt of the huge amount from them. So, we are of the view that District  Forum erred in granting relief of Rs.67,000/- in para No.14(i) of the impugned order to the complainants. The complainants are entitled to only an amount of Rs.47,500/- instead of Rs.67,000/- (awarded by the District Forum), as total cost of the renovation work Rs.1,73,000/- and the appellant completed 50% of the work i.e. of Rs.86,500/-. Whereas the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,34,000/-, as such, Rs.1,34,000/- - Rs.86,500/- = Rs.47,500/-, is the amount to which the complainants are entitled.

18.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is excessive or not. It is, no doubt, true that the complainants were harassed at the hands of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 because he did not complete the work within the stipulated period, as mentioned in the Agreement. Even the complainants produced on record one report dated 08.10.2014 of Ar.Ashwani Saini (Annexure O-6), which showed that work relating to wallpaper, upholstery, wooden flooring, center table, glass work, paint work, bar chairs, polishing work and blinds amounting to Rs.95,700/- remained to be done and work relating to L-Type setting, opening, partition, wall putty, false ceiling and wooden box amounting to Rs.16,100/- was also pending.  Even the appellant not only harassed the complainants but also the other people, which fact was established from the comments of Ms.Sunita Ghosh. So, we are of the considered view that the complainants were certainly entitled to compensation but the District Forum, while passing the impugned order, granted the compensation of Rs.40,000/- which is on the higher side because the appellant had already completed 50% of the work of the house of the complainants. We are of the considered opinion that the compensation should commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, mental agony suffered by the consumer and physical harassment caused to him. It should neither be too high nor too meagre. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is on the higher side, and the same is liable to be reduced. Thus, the compensation is reduced to Rs.20,000/-, which in our considered opinion, shall meet the ends of justice.

19.            In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is partly accepted, with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner, and the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.47,500/- (total cost of the work Rs.1,73,000/-, completion of work 50% i.e. Rs.86,500/-, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- and, as such, Rs.1,34,000/- - Rs.86,500/- =  Rs.47,500/-) to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from 15.01.2014 onwards.  
2. To make payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- (awarded by the District Forum) to the complainants for deficiency in service, physical harassment and mental agony.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum.
4. If the order is not complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the same, the amounts mentioned in Clause (i) & (ii), above, shall be payable by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 alongwith interest @12% per annum,  from the date of filing the complaint, before the District Forum, till actual realization, besides payment of cost of litigation.

20.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

21.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

26.06.2015                                                         Sd/-         

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER