ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT

1.      This is the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the deficiency in service in not doing good quality interior works in time and thereby to direct OPs to fix all the issues and complete the interior in all manner with good quality and standard materials with warranty, and to pay Rs.30,000/- rental amounts Rs.50,000/- being the loss of pay transportation and inconvenience in visiting the office of OP and Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for suffering mental tensions, family disturbance, kids education, health issues and for damages and penalty and for cost and other reliefs as the commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are: that the complainant is the owner of the flat. She wanted to renovate her home and paid Rs.1,15,000/- to the OP towards design and interior works as initial payment.  OPs agreed to complete and finish the work within 45 to 60 days time from the date of paying 50% of the amount against the work. After paying the initial payment, OPs did not get back to the complainant with plan and design till Aug 2019 when repeatedly visit their office 3 to 4 times and complaining  no response and no work, OPs came with a design and initial project plan during August 2019 only.  Though complainant suggest changes in the design given by OPs. OPs never answered and responded to the changes.  OPs took 6 months to finalize a design after their visits to the office. 

3.      Afterwards, during August 2019 OPs quoted Rs.18,50,822/- towards the interiors and customized work. After going through the said quotation which was unrealistic and highly priced, she sought for the details item wise.  They left out some of  the items and after mutual agreement 50% of the amount was Rs.5,66,000/- i.e. paid on 08.12.2019,  OPs agreeing to complete the work within 45 to 60 days. Even after receiving 50% of the amount, OPs did not commence the work. She had to visit the office of OP several time by applying leave to her office.  The demolition team of OP did a shaby work and left the debris as such on the floor where they were living which caused lot of trouble. When the matter was brought to OPs they promised to do work floor wise, so that complainant can stay on one floor where the work is not taken.  Contrary to it, OPs demolished both the floors at a time and left the rumbling in the house. It was a total mess and unfit to stay. Hence to hire rooms in OYO by compromising their comforts by paying Rs.15,225.96 per month for about 2 months.  Even after demolishing the house, OPs did not take up the work and did not bother to receive their calls. 

4.      Even after paying approximately Rs.7,00,000/-. She was thinking of cancelling the contract and went to the office of the OP and met one Gowthami and General manager Maya who promised to complete with in 15.02.2020 and requested her not to cancel the contract and also promised to monitor the deliver the quality work. Inspite of it, OPs failed to keep up the promise in respect of the time schedule and the quality.  Finally during January 2020, OPs commenced the work. It was also promised that the progress would be share with the complaint. But nothing has happened in that way. Workers of OPs did work for three days in a week only.  Further there was a dispute between the building owner and OYO properties and they had to close the contract and in view of this, complainant and her family member were pressurized to vacate the said room.  Though OP promised to handover the possession by 15.02.2020 by that time even 50% of the work was not completed.  Again OP made a demand for Rs.4,32,976/-. 

5.      They requested OP-2 handover the house by 1^st of Mary 2020 as they wanted and intended to celebrate 10^th birthday of her daughter in the renovated house. Inspite of it, OP did not complete the work. As on 29.02.2020 still there was 30% of work pending. Since the owner / renter of OYO had ultimatum to vacate the premises, she had to shift to the house which was unfinished, and dusty.  In respect of the interiors, OPs got cleaned their house temporarily. Inspite of it, they could not celebrate the birthday of their daughter. The workers of OPs were very irresponsible and they used the buckets, ladders, kitchen sink and bathroom of the house and made it dirty and the kitchen sink was stained with pan splits. Further there was mismatch in the units which was delivered by life space in the stilt area, dressing unit, which was exchanged after 6 months of follow-up The sitting area of unit was repaired which do not come within the warranty period.

6.      Even by October 2020, the work was incomplete. Even then OP was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- plus, to the work which they dis not carryout. Left with no option, she had to pay Rs.1,52,956/- to OPs. Even after moving to t heir house OPs still kept on doing work till December -2020, and created a dust messed-up house which caused Asthma to the complainant. Even on date of filing of the complaint, the customized work laminates in the rafter were pealing. When she asked for warranty, OPs said that they are not going to give warranty for cussion works. While booking the same, OPs had promised 10 years warranty for catalogue units and 5 year warranty for others. 

7.      OPs have agreed to pay delay penalty as per the agreement which they did not pay and also they have not closed the project.  No response coming from the OPs even though she tried to request OP to fix the project.  The broken tiles were not matching not aligned and no proper solution was provided for the mismatched tiles. Laminates and other things were peeling off. Ladder not fixed.  Fully painted walls were spoiled and they had to be repainted twice. There were internal damages,  railing spoiled, tiles broken, which caused her and family members lot of mental agony, stress and strain and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed the forum to allow the complaint.

 8.     Upon service of notice, OP remained absent and placed exparte.

9.      In order to prove the case, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard.   The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service and there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.    Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1: In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2: Partly in the affirmative.

                      For the following.

REASONS

POINT NO 1:

11.    On perusing the complaint averments, affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, it becomes clear, that the complainant entered into with an agreement with OP to get her house interiors to be carried by the OPs. OPs have also issued the vouchers for having received the amount. It is also not in dispute and as could be seen from the email correspondences that OP did not adhere to the time line in spite of receiving major portion of the amount agreed.  In several emails OPs have been seeking extension of time to complete the work, for which the complainant extended the same under protest just to see that the interiors are completed so that she can live in the house. It is also to be noted here that, when she had already occupied and while living in the house the interior work was to be carried out and it is in the evidence that OPs took up the work simultaneously in demolishing the required wall and portion to carry out the interiors without providing any space for the complainant to live in the house and hence she had to obtain room on rent by paying rent.

12.    It was initially agreed by the OPs that they would carryout and finish the interior work within 45 to 60 days.  The act of OPs in not completing the interiors and handing over the possession of the flat put complainant in to problem. Even the work carried out by the OPs was of low quality and substandard work.  In order to accommodate the OPs to carryout the work and in view of the demolition of the some of walls, complainant had to move for a room on rent which had water problem, electricity and internet problem and further there was a dispute between the owner and the person who was maintaining the property.  OP in all had obtained Rs.4,32,976/- which was paid during February 2020 hoping that they would get the house completely finished.  Inspite of it, they did not complete the unit and there was mismatch in the unit that was delivered i.e sitting area dress unit, which was exchanged afterwards.  They had to make amount of Rs.1,52,956/- in addition to, in order to complete the said work during October 2020.

13.    All these evidences and documents have not been challenged and refuted by the OPs. They remained absent when the notice was served which clearly shows that if they attended the commission and filed their version, they had to admit their lapses and admit the allegations made. In view of unchallenged evidence of the complaint against OPs, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2.

14.    Complainant has claimed Rs.30,000/- being the rent which he has paid to the room she has obtained on rent for herself and for her family members for the delay in OP completing the interiors, whereas no document for having paid the rent is produced to that effect. Complainant has also sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation for meeting the expenses of attending for calling the OPs over the phone and visiting their officer and also Rs.5 lakhs as damages for undergoing mental tension, family disturbances, kids education health issues due to the delay in OPs carrying out the works contending that the penalty clause of Rs.40,000/- for the delay for about 3 years is inadequate and further OP ought to have given 7 years warranty in respect of the work carried out.

15.    To substantiate the above claim no supporting documents have been given by the complainant. Further no specific dates and months have been mentioned as to how long she took the room on rent by paying the rent and also the amount spent over the phone calls and the visit made  to the office of OP and also the sufferance to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the absence of concrete evidence regarding the paying of the rent incurring of the expenses, and the amount of damages we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the rent and Rs.10,000/- towards expenses and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for suffering mental agony, physical hardship and financial loss, if OP is ordered to pay, would meet the ends of justice as the cardinal principle of granting compensation is to compensate justly, fairly and reasonably and it should not be a bonanaza for the complainant.  Further we are also of the opinion that Op has to provide guarantee/warranty for the materials used by it as given by the supplier / manufacturer to the complainant. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE 0and pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OPs No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards rent paid by the complainant while getting the room for rent, Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred for making phone calls to visit the office of OP during the project work of interior of her house and further Rs.50,000/- as damages for causing her to suffer mental agony, hardship and physical strain within 30 days. Failing which the said amount (i.e. Rs.70,000/- shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 09.04.2021 till payment of the entire amount.
3. OPs are comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 11th^t day of MARCH  2022)

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the customer receipt voucher dt:02.06.2019.

Ex P2: Copy of Project plan.

Ex. P3: Copy of email correspondences.

Ex P4 : Copy of receipt issued by OP.

Ex P5: Copy of Tax Invoice dt:02.01.2020.

Ex P6: Copy of Facebook post.

Ex P7: Copy  of issue log.

Ex P8: Copy of receipts.

Ex P9: Copy of doctor prescription

Ex P10: Copy of escalation emails.

Ex P11: Copy of sample email follow ups.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: - Nil -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

RAK*