BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.

Dated: 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1826/2019

ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.11(2) of C.P Act, 1986 for deficiency in service against OP in not completing the interior works agreed and for unfair trade practice in not refunding the amount received as advance and also for refund of Rs.78,652/- and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages towards causing harassment, mental agony and hardship and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and for other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that:

Complainant engaged the services of OP for interior design and interior decoration and agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards booking amount and paid the same on 19.09.2019 and further lot of discussions were held and the final quotation was given by the OP and further it was agreed by the complainant to pay 10% of the quotation money i.e., Rs.78,652/- and the same was paid on 21.09.2019.  The receipt was also issued by the OP.  OP agreed to provide 10 years warranty for the Century ply it uses for the purpose of interior work and for kitchen work.  Though the company was offering 10 years warranty, OP offered warranty for 5 years only on materials and 5 years of warranty on service.  Century ply was offering for different segment or standards of its ply for 8 years warranty.  After finalizing the quotation Mr.Ishank Goyal of OP did not provide the required warranty as offered by the manufacturing company.  When requested, it was informed that they wanted to reduce the cost and that is why they have not provided the guarantee for the material and that they cannot change the policy.  Even for ply woods used for kitchen also though the warranty and the guarantee was offered by the company was more years, OP did not come forward to provide such a warranty.  Not happy with the OP work, she called up the contract and terminated the agreement and demanded for refund of the amount for which OP conveyed that there is no provision to refund the amount.  Hence she had issued legal notice informing that she did not want to proceed with the contract and sought for refund of the amount.  On 15.10.2019 sought for refund of Rs.68,652/- less Rs.10,000/- as the OP has executed own PPT or in the alternative sought for purchase of furniture worth Rs.78,652/-.  Inspite of it, OP did not refund the amount and hence the complaint.

3. In the version filed by the OP after service of notice, it has contended that the complaint is neither maintainable in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed as the same is filed on false, baseless grounds to harass the OP.  It has admitted partly the allegations made in para-1 to 14 of the complaint.

It is contended that the complainant approached the OP to get its service of interior decoration to furnish her new Flat.  After lot of discussions with the OP’s Company representatives, complainant was convinced with the technical team, rules of the Company and agreed to enter into a contract for furnishing her new Flat and paid sum of Rs.78,652/- to commence the work.  With all effort to get the project complete by their team, prepared the PPT to be exhibited to the complainant.  Complainant sought more clarification, guarantee of materials which would be used for the project.  Inspite of the OP technical team trying to convince her in better way, complainant expected more service from the OP and she was not convinced and her doubt could not be cleared.  Finally the complainant wanted to terminate the agreement entered into and at that time, OP agreed to repay 50% of the amount received from the complainant i.e., Rs.39,326/- which the complainant did not agree. 

OP is a reputed company and never wanted such an incident to happen in the history of the company.  It has provided employments for engineers, graduates with sufficient salaries and facilities and taking care of social responsibilities to their family.  Complainant on one reasons or other, took several points with malafide intention to break-up the contract with unjustifiable reasons and details.  There is no deficiency of its part and the complaint is not maintainable and the OP has not caused any mental agony, physical hardship and it is not liable to pay the litigation expenses and compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. In order to prove the case, complainant has filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.  OP has not filed the affidavit evidence. Arguments Heard.   The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

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

5. Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1: Affirmative

POINT No.2: Partly in the Affirmative

               For the following.

REASONS

POINT NO 1 & 2:

6. When the facts and circumstances and the email correspondence that has taken place between the parties are taken into consideration, and that too, when OP has offered to refund 50% of the total amount paid which complainant did not agree and insisted to refund Rs.78,652/- less Rs.10,000/- i.e., Rs.68,652/- paid to the OP for the PPT work carried out, we are of the opinion that from the very beginning the complainant did not want to have the contract with the OP and OP ought to have given the warranty/guarantee to the products used for the interior work.  When the company is offering the warranty/guarantee to the product used why OP did not offered the same is remote point to be considered.  In view of this, we are of the opinion and there is unfair trade practice on the part of OP, hence answer point No.1 in the affirmative. 

7. In the result since the complainant herself has come forward to receive a lessor amount by Rs.10,000/- reduced out of the amount paid by her, we deem it proper to award the same i.e., Rs.68,652/- with interest @ 10% p.a on the said amount from the date of payment i.e., 23.09.2019 along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and further damages of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following:               

  O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.68,652/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a from 23.09.2019 till the payment of the entire amount along with damages of Rs.5,000/- together with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

This order is to be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

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 25^th day of FEBRUARY 2022)

 MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

Vln*

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: Audio recording of the OPs representative.

Ex. P2: Final quotation shared by OP.

Ex. P3: Credit card payment details.

Ex. P4: Receipt issued by OP.

Ex. P5: Email correspondence.

Ex. P6: Email correspondence with PPT presentations.

Ex. P7: Legal notice.

Ex. P8: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex. P9: CD containing telephone conversation.

Ex. P10: Certificate U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

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

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP - Nil

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT