DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the  29^th day of February 2024

                             Filed on: 16/11/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 434/2021

COMPLAINANT

Ajith Kumar L., S/o.K Lambodharan Nair, 27/2372-G, “Sreemangalam”, Justice Krishna Iyer Road, Sastri Nagar, Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

RAK Interiors, 340 C, & D, MI Arcade, NH-47, Toll Gate, Edappally,
Pin-682 024

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had contacted the opposite party and enquired for renovating the interior of his residence in the month of September 2021.  Based on the enquiry, one of the sales representatives Mr.Vinay visited the house of the complainant and to take measurements of the work to be done.  Based on the discussions, Mr.Vinay submitted a final quote for Rs.9,50,196/-.  While submitting the quote, Mr.Vinay also informed the complainant that the prices would change after the designer visits and take actual measurements and mentioned that the price would remain the same if not less. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- as booking charges.  On receipt of the payment Mr.Noufin who is the designer of the opposite party visited the complainant’s house and took measurement of the work again.  During his visit, the complainant understood that Mr.Vinay has not discussed about the requirements of the complainant with Noufin. Unfortunately, the drawings submitted by Noufin, which was completely far different from the complainant’s requirements.  After the discussion a second set of drawings were submitted and based on it, quotations were also submitted by Noufin. The complainant states that the price of the quotation of Rs.15,91,804/- which was almost 60% more than the initial quotation submitted by Vinay.  When the complainant enquired about this, its was stated that the increase in the price was because of the increase in sq.ft area after the measurements were taken by Noufin whereas, at no stage had they informed the complainant about the initial sq.ft area.  When taking the initial measurements, Mr.Vinay repeatedly assured the complainant that the work would be done exactly as the complainant required, but later the Designer suggested that certain work would require more sq. ft construction and hence higher cost.  The complainant had visited the 2^nd party (Noufin) office and met the Team leader Ms.Shabnam and explained her the scenario and informed the complainant’s dissatisfaction about the way things are handled and also the discrepancy in the pricing. The complainant had expressed his intent not to employ the second party for the refurbishing work and asked for a refund of Rs.40,000/-.  The complainant was informed that Rs.40,000/- cannot be refunded as that will be considered as design charges.  Since the complainant had liked the crockery unit displayed at the showroom, the complainant asked them to provide the quote of the crockery unit alone.  Based on this another quote and related drawing was submitted.  The complainant was surprised with the single unit crockery shelf Rs.1,28,829.93 which was different and very high from the quote provided by the designer after he had taken the initial measurement.  Later the complainant insisted to Mr.Vinay that he need crockery shelf to be exactly the same. It created lot of mental agony and tension to the complainant’s family and midway through the scenario the complainant’s wife Smt.Viji Pillai developed stress related health issues such as uneasiness in the chest and she was taken to Lisie Hospital. The complainant had decided not to continue any further communication with the opposite party and entrust them with the interior work.  Since neither their designer nor the quotation were in accordance with the complainant’s requirements and not approved it.  Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party

1. To refund Rs.40,000/- paid as advance towards assigning interior works to the opposite party.
2. Rs.25,000/- as damages towards mental agony and tension which leads uneasiness in the chest of the complainant’s wife.
3. Legal charges if any.

2. Notice

Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party on 22.12.2021. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of the opposite party

The opposite party is engaged in the business of interior designs and furnishings. The averments in paragraph 2 of the complaint are incorrect and hence denied by the opposite party.  The averment that the sales executive of the opposite party Sri. Vinay visited the house to take measurements of the work and he visited the place multiple times and based on the discussions, submitted a final quote of Rs.9,50,196/- is incorrect and hence denied.  Before finalizing the quote dated 18.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.9,50,196/- the opposite party had submitted five different quotations as per the changing requirements of the complainant.  The complainant was suggesting changes and accordingly, the opposite party had issued the 6^th quotation dated 18.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.9,50196.99/-.  It was only after receiving the 6^th quotation, the complainant had approved the interior works.  The averments in paragaraph 3, 4,5, 6 and 7 of the complaint are also incorrect and hence denied by the opposite party.   The complainant after having availed the services of the opposite party in preparing the various drawings of designs by conducting site inspections and consultation is attempting to get refund of the advance money by blaming the opposite party.  The complainant is arbitrarily trying to take advantage of the services of the opposite party.  The complainant had approved the terms in the quotation issued by the opposite party and had made the payment of Rs.40,000/-.

4. Evidence

On verification of records the complainant had produced 4 documents along with consumer complaint. 

1. Copy of the Aadhaar Card of the complainant.
2. Initial quotation for furnishing the house, for Rs.9,50,196.99
3. Payment made through bank and UPS Rs.40,000/-
4. Quotation after advance payment made and after the designer took measurements for Rs.15,91,804.49

5)    The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

The case posted for evidence on 31.08.2022 and then adjourned to 19.04.2023 as NFT.  On 19.04.2023 the complainant was absent.  Hence Commission issued notice to the complainant for adducing evidence from his side.  Notice sent to the complainant is seen served on 01.05.2023 and the case posted to 31.05.2023.  On 31.05.2023 the complaint appeared before the Commission. The complainant is directed to file a proof affidavit for marking the evidence of the  complainant since the complaint was filed as per Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  On the next posting the complainant was absent and the case was posted for marking the documents from the side of the complainant. On 09.11.2023 also both parties were absent.  Evidence of the opposite party also closed and the case posted on 03.02.2024 for final hearing.  On 03.02.2024 also both parties absent and hence taken for orders. 

The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had submitted a quote for Rs.9,50,196/- for doing the interior works of the complainant’s house.  But the initial quotation submitted by the opposite party is not according to the requirements of the complainant.  As per the request of the complainant the opposite party had submitted another quotation for Rs.15,91,804/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh ninety one thousand eight hundred and four only) considering all the requirements of the complainant.  The complainant’s main allegation is that the second quoted amount was almost more than 60% of the initial quotation submitted by the opposite party.  Due to the discrepancy in price of these two quotations the complainant had requested the opposite party to return the advance amount of Rs.40,000/- and the opposite party had informed the complainant that Rs.40,000/- cannot be refunded since it is considered as design charges.  Hence this complaint.

The opposite party had admitted in their version that they had received Rs.40000/- from the complainant.

As per the available evidence in this we cannot prove any deficiency of service from the opposite party towards the complainant.  Complainant has admitted in his complaint that as per the requirements of the complainant the design was changed.  Complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that he has requested the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant also states in his complaint that the “opposite party has informed that Rs.40,000/- cannot be refunded since it is the charges for Design”.  No documentary evidence produced by the complainant to prove that the opposite party is not ready to refund the advance amount stating that Rs.40,000/- is received as ‘charges for design’.

The complainant has not filed proof affidavit.  The documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient to prove the case.

Considering the above circumstances especially the non-appearance of the complainant to adduce oral evidence and to make his presence before the Commission we find that the complainant has not been successful enough to prove his case by adducing evidence to substantiate the complaint.

In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

Resultantly we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 29^th day of February 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

uk

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence

Opposite party’s evidence : Nil

Date of Despatch        :: By Hand:            By post