ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not providing networking an automation to the complainant’s premises and to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and for causing mental agony, damage to business and reputation and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant is carrying construction of residential building at 4^th stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. He was in search of a consultant for carrying out networking and home automation and came in acquaintance with OP who claimed that they are into networking and home automation consultants in Bangalore and there company has been incorporated and named as “Intellimation Solutions Private Limited” and also informed that they have successfully carried out several projects and have a popular name in the industry. Believing the words of the OPs and upon their promise that they will carryout the project and as the OPs showed interest in carrying out the projects, he advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through NEFT for the total contractual work of Rs.12,00,000/-.  After receiving Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.05.2019 by NEFT against the commencement of the work, OP sent a letter dated 07.05.2019 attaching the mail acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- in their letter head, upon which, the compliant sent work order and scope of activities and other related details for the above project.  It is mentioned in the said email to the complaint that they would provide networking CCTV and video door home within 15 days after receiving the advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.  In the second face automation 15 days after receiving a final set of requirements, i.e., lighting design, switching and requirement.

3.      It is stated that after making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- OPs submitted an improper, useless drawing in the form of a downloadable link which expires in a span of couple of few days without any signature validating the work to be done by the vendors.  The same was useless for the complainant’s project and also based on which the other vendors, electrical vendors could not perform their part of work on the OPs incomplete drawing which was showing only the points without any cable connectivity.  Hence the vendors were confused by looking at the drawings and they informed that the drawings provided to them are in unprofessional way. The networking designer should give correct drawing including wiring designs along with the points which is a general trend in the market in the field of networking design.  The same was intimated to the OP to submit the proper design for the requirement of the project including wiring and designing.

4.      OPs evaded the complainant request and evasively replied to their mail stating that the same is not in the scope of work and they are unable to co-operate with the vendors as they are located at the far end of Bangalore from where the project is located and further informed that they are not authorized to sign on the design provided by the OPs.  Through expiable download link, and did not shown any interest in the work/project as they have other big projects going on.  They showed the real colour after receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Even they failed to provide the split bills for the amount received. Even they have not at all started work even after receiving the amount.  When complainant requested OPs to refund the amount received instead of refunding the amount, informed that they are charging Rs.1,00,000/- towards the said drawing which is without any signature.  

5.      On 9^th March 2019 they informed over email that they are happy to waive of the entire design or drawing charge for the project, whereas they have charged hefty amount towards useless, baseless drawing design which is against to professional and business ethics. OPs are unprofessional due to which complainant has to incur unnecessary additional charges which consumed additional time for his other vendors. He had to appoint another networking professional with great difficulty to complete the project by paying a higher amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.  Due to the unprofessional act of OPPOSITE PARTY, he has to suffer heavy loss and there was delay in the project.  The act of OPs being unprofessional is devoid of service and is an example for unfair trade practice. They have cheated the complainant and there is a criminal breach of service fraud and misrepresentation. He had to issue a notice on 12.07.2019 which was returned as refused, which clearly shows that the message has been conveyed to the OP regarding the contents of the notice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence prayed to allow the complaint.

6.      Upon the service of notice, OPs 1, 2 and 3 appeared before the Commission and filed a common version contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and is filed by suppressing material facts on false and frivolous grounds.  They had an arrangement with the complainant to provide design and commissioning of home automation network CCTV, Video, door phone for his residential building, which was under construction as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.   They were to provide the drawings for first phase i.e., networking CCTV, Video door phone within 15 days after receiving the advance payment and the required documents which was to be provided by the complainant.  OP also met the representative of the complainant on 11^th May 2019 to review and discuss the drawing.  The complainants and the architects worked on the drawing provided by the OP and requested further to rework and revise the drawing.  On May 17^th and on 30^th June 2019 mail was sent by the architect of the complainant to the OPs.  The payment for the work done to be paid in advance.  No payment made for the additional work done in terms of the arrangements entered to by the OPs.  Complainant filed this complaint in order to avoid his liability in making the payment and threatening the OP by filing this frivolous litigation.  They have admitted that OP2 and 3 are the directors of OP1 carrying on day to day business activity with the support of other vendors experts.

7.      The total cost of the project was Rs.12 lakhs and the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- only as per the terms and conditions agreed to.  The advance amount received was towards part payment of the work done in Phase No.1 i.e., for drawing etc., which the same was provided.  OP sent an email on 26^th April 2019 mentioning the scope of activities and that were out of the scope. The payment schedule and delivery mile stone.

8.      It is denied by OP that they have furnished an improper useless drawing in the form of downloadable link which expires within a couple of few days.  Complainant has not suffered any loss as alleged and not entitle for any of the relief claimed.  

9.      The designs for the entire plan was submitted by OP and subsequently discussions were held between the complainant representative architects and the OPs.  After the first review, another version of drawing were shared with the complainant and as per the complainant instruction, their architects and contractors worked on the same.  After receiving the complete design provided by the OPPOSITE PARTY, complainant instructed his architects and electrical design contractor to do the work on the basis of the drawing and design. Since the work done by the said architects and contractor were not up to the mark, OP made appropriate comments in that respect.  Complainant requested OP to work on the assignment which was out of the scope of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Which was also clarified to the complainant i.e., in respect of cabling and conduiting, day to day supervision of cabling and conduiting. The same was clearly mentioned.  The said works and the procurement of rack and installation was out of the scope of the agreement. OP had provided drawing for the first phase and partial requirement of second phase to the complainant representative who accepted and forwarded to their architects and other members of the project team for subsequent work. There were several interaction between them in respect of the said drawings.  It was also informed by the complainant that “please have a look at the drawing attached and give me a go ahead to get the work started, please let me know is there any changes to be made. Since there were some changes to be made by the consultants the same was brought to their notice.” OP has given a bifurcation of the total cost of the project.  Negotiation also took place for the work for which fee of Rs.89000/- + GST be charged for the work to be done during first phase.  OP demanded advance payment to meet the expenses in respect of the phase 1, for the efforts put by it and the services provided by to the complainant.

10.    It is contended that there is no deficiency of service.  Complainant wanted OPs to co-ordinate with the conduiting and cabling work which was not within the scope of the work. They provided services diligently and the same was accepted by the complainant and his contractor. The changes made were not in accordance with the discussion made by the OPs. One of the representative of the complainant terminated the arrangements citing the reason that the OP was not able to co-operate and conduct the work with other contractors which is false and is not within the scope of the work.  They never received any notice from the complainant. Whereas one Milan Maroti issued a demand notice in form No.3 prescribed under insolvency and bankruptcy code 2016 which was suitably replied.  On June 14, 2019 one Mr.Janesh representative was communicating with the OP sent an email terminating the arrangement unilaterally.  Citing the reason that intellimation is not able to co-operate and conduct the work with other contractors and vendors as required by the project.  The allegation made to terminate was out of scope of work and the same was communicated to the complainants.

11.    They have invested lot of time energy and efforts to provide the services to the complainant. They met several times the complainant his architects and consultants.  Lot of time and amount was spent in that direction for which they charged Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence there is no deficiency on their part and prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

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

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

13.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 AND 2:                In the Negative

                                                For the following.

REASONS

14.   POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- for getting the drawings and design for his building automation, such as providing home automation, network, CCTV, Video door phone in the I phase and for the works to be undertaken in the II Stage at a later date.

        15.   According to OP, OP has submitted the designs to the complainant and the same has been used by the consultant architects and the electrical contractor whereas making false allegation that the said designs were not proper and inspite of request the same was not modified.  Even the complainant himself has sought by writing a letter to the OP that “please have a look at the drawing attached and give me a go ahead to get the work started, please let me know is there any changes to be made.”

        16.   On perusing the email correspondences there were several queries made by the complainant which were clarified by the OPs.  Even the complainant has sought for change of a term of paying 25% after installation to 10 to 15% split and requested to provide automation drawing and other drawings, so that he can include whatever wiring to be done at once in conjunction with electrical consultants. Several drawings said to have been given by the OP is also produced.

        17.   The main crucks of the problem between the complainant and OP is that, complainant wanted to provide drawings for conduiting and electrical points for which OP said that it is out of the scope of the terms and conditions. OP2 has written a letter to the complainant stating that what is included and what is out of the scople of the activities regarding the work to be carried out in respect of home automation and other works.  The said document dated 26.4.2018 is very clear, regarding the responsibility to be carried out by the OP.  After receiving Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant OP has carried out the drawings and handed over to the complainant and further had discussions with the complainant his architect and the electrical contractors. When such being the case and as several discussions were held between them to sort out the problem, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out and hence we answer point NO.1 in the negative and in the result the complainant is not entitle for any of the relief made in the prayer and hence we answer point No.2 also in the Negative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed. No cost.
2. 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 failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022)

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 proforma invoice (2 in Nos.)

Ex P2: Copy of the email correspondences

Ex. P3: Copy of the letter written by OPPOSITE PARTY to me

Ex P4: Copy of the Item description and quotation

Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice

Es P6: copy of the account details to show that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been debited to the account of the OP

Ex P7: Drawings

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

RW-1: Sri.Swapnil Jain, Director

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Email correspondence

Ex R2: Email correspondence

Ex R3: Fee and scope of work given by the OP1

Ex R4: Email

Ex R5: Reply sent by OP

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*