BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 15^TH DAY OF MAY 2023

ORDER

SMT.K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, praying to pass order directing the OP to refund of Rs.4,16,500/- along with 18% of interest per annum, direction to OP to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant is an employee of PAXOS Global Private Limited, is residing at Singapore. He visits Bangalore very often, hence he has executed a general power of attorney in favour of his father. OP is running interior firm, being a proprietor of OP firm, is a close friend of complainant who has represented with complainant, as he is engaged in providing various services relating to interior, renovation and some civil works from several years. After the information about OP, complainant for the first time on 09.08.2019 contacted proprietor of OP firm with intention to engage the service of OP for interior work for his residence. It includes his bath room, kitchen and bed room. Complainant stated that he requested OP to send him a estimation/quotation required for the said interior works. Accordingly on 27.08.2019 OP has issued a quotation bearing No.04 with a estimated total of Rs.7,91,121.25/-,  after discount. Based on the quotation of OP, complainant agreed to engage the services of OP for interior works of his house. OP promised to begin the work on 30.10.2019. OP requested complainant to pay an advance amount of Rs.4,90,000/-. The complainant agreed and transferred an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- through NEFT to the OP bank account on 27.01.2020 and advance amount in cash on 16.01.2020. OP did not commence the interior work as promised on 15.02.2020. Complainant repeatedly requested OP to enter into an agreement, the proprietor of OP had entered into hand written agreement by name of interior design contract with complainant. He had acknowledged the advance amount paid by complainant in the said agreement. It was also promised by proprietor of OP that works would be completed by 29.02.2020.

3. Despite, the complainant paid amount half of the estimated amount quoted by OP, but OP did not commence the said work on the promised day. He commenced the works on 09.03.2020 and begins dismantling the complainant’s house on various places including his kitchen and bed room. Subsequently OP did not turn up with his team for work. An estimate of only 15% of entire work promised by OP was completed as on 13.03.2020. Subsequently to that, the entire nation went under lock down, the repeated period of pandemic Covid-19 for almost a year. After releasing the restrictions with regard to the Covid protocal slowly resuming its activities, complainant contacted OP through phone requesting him to commence the unfound work. On one or the other reasons OP quote as prolonging the works. On 20.04.2020, when complainant met OP, he issued three post dated cheques and instructed the complainant to present the said cheques on 25.04.2020, 05.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 respectively for an amount total to Rs.3,90,000/-. On 20.05.2020 when the complainant followed the instructions of the OP, had gone to bank to deposit the cheque after informing OP, OP did not allow to deposit the cheque, he stopped the payment on purpose. On the same day, complainant met OP and requested him to refund the advance for which he has assured to pay on informed day. Subsequently on 21.05.2020 when the complainant tried to contact OP, he did not respond nor he replied to the messages sent on whatsapp by complainant. Complainant stated when the OP did not respond to the complainant messages.

4. Therefore, complainant approached another interior firm name Fudro Seedolabs Private Limited to complete the interior work, which is incomplete by OP. Complainant spent Rs.4,00,000/- additionally to work done by another interiors. After several requests made to refund the advance amount paid by him, OP did not turn up and also not responded to the messages sent by complainant. There was no option left for complainant. On 29.12.2021 police complaint through his father before Thalaghattapura against OP for not completing the work as promised by him and to refund the amount paid. The complaint was registered and reported as NCR, reference No.1049/2021. Hence OP caused deficiency of services by not refunding the advance amount paid by the complainant towards interior work also not coming forward to complete the work which is left out in the middle. Therefore complainant suffered huge financial loss. He had dream of having new fixtures and fittings and a new look for his home, it had been shattered due to the negligent and defecient act of OP. OP not only misrepresented but also gave false assurances to the complainant and his family. Complainant alleged that aged parents had suffered with health problems due to the dust that had been caused due to the dismantling of articles for renovation purpose by OP. Therefore he approached this commission and seeking direction to refund the amount of Rs.4,16,500/- with interest of 18% per annum and compensation of 10 lakhs.

5. The notice sent to OP through RPAD, E-mail, whatsapp but OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

6. After the stage of version, the case as set down to adduce evidence of complainant, accordingly GPA holder of complainant who is father of complainant filed his oral evidence. In support of the oral evidence, complainant has filed 10 documents which are marked as Ex-P1 to P10. Heard the arguments of complainant, we perused the materials on record.

7. The points that would arise for reconsideration are as under:-

i)Point No.1:- Whether complainant proves that the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii)Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought?

iii) Point No.3:- What order?

8. Our findings on the afore said points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

ii) Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

iii) Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

9. Point No.1:- On perusal of pleadings and relied on the documents produced by complainant is proving that complainant has availed services of his house interiors by OP. As per Ex-P2, OP has issued quotation pertains to the house of complainant which is to be agreed to renovate the kitchen, bath room and bed rooms. OP has given estimated cost of Rs.7,91,121/- to get the interior of the residence. As the complainant has paid Rs.1,80,000/- through NEFT and the balance as paid in terms of cash. The documents Ex-P3 reveals the payment to Rs.1,80,000/- through bank statement filed by complainant. The balance has paid in cash has revealed in the agreement copy signed by both parties, hence on perusal of Ex-P4, revealing the payment of Rs.4,90,000/- is received by OP towards the interior works, is proved. As OP has assured, work has not commenced in the month of February, the same has started on 09.03.2020. OP has dismantled the earlier interior works till 13.03.2020 (for 4 days only). Subsequently as we all aware the Central Government has called for lock down throughout nation due to Covid-19 and the work has stopped in this regard. OP not started his work even after the restrictions of Covid as relaxed, though the people started resuming their activities as usual, complainant and his father requested OP to commence the work and to complete his assignment as agreed, but OP did not come forward to start his work. On 20.04.2020 OP has issued three post dated cheques dated 25.04.2020, 05.05.2020 and 20.05.2020 but all the three has not materialised by complainant on the ground that OP has stopped payments in the bank. Hence the payment of Rs.3,90,000/- is not honoured through cheques issued by OP which are at Ex-P6.

10. When the OP has not come forward to complete the work, complainant has requested him through phone calls but OP has dragged matter on one or the other reasons. Subsequently OP has stopped receiving phone calls not reverting back to complainant, is unjust and unfair. Hence complainant has sent whatsapp messages also to OP requesting him to complete the work, since he has received Rs.4,90,000/- out of Rs.7,91,121/-.

11. Upon going through Ex-P9, complainant has assigned the incomplete work to the other interior firm that is Furdo Seedolabs Private Limited by paying Rs.4,00,000/- to complete the interior work on 09.06.2020.  By perusing the documents, it is proved that OP has started his work for four days and left it in the middle. The work has assigned to the other firm for completion is evidenting that OP has dismantle the earlier interior work, might have caused still inconvenience and dirty around the living place. It really shows the negligent attitude and not bothered, even though  residents in the house are aged people. As he has stated in his complaint, complainants parents have suffered mentally and health wise due to the dust and inconvenience caused by OP. In our considered view OP has caused deficiency of services even after collecting amount 50% of estimated cost and not completed his agreed work. It exhibits deficiency of services on the part of OP and he has to compensate it.

12. Complainant also approached police station and alleged complaint against OP calling upon to work further and complete it, which is at Ex-P10. If at all OP is intended to complete the work, he could come forward when the complainant has requested or otherwise he could come when he received the notice from this commission, but OP did not do so, he neither appeared before this commission nor contested to defend his case. Hence the documents placed by complainant are unchallenged. Complainant has proved the deficiency of service by OP. On the above reasons, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

13. Point No.2:- Based on the documents placed on record, complainant has paid Rs.4,90,000/- to OP. As he stated OP has done 15% of work and the remaining 85% has to be completed by OP. Accordingly complainant has claimed Rs.4,16,500/- with 18% of interest. As we observed dismantling of 15% in 4 days of his work, but the said dismantling might have caused still worsen the condition of the complainant’s house and its residents. In our considered view, when the entire project is considered, we can measure 15% of work, out of it, otherwise work for 4 days that too dismantling the earlier work cannot be measured as 15% of work from total work contract. Hence we cannot consider OP’s work amounts to 15% of entire project, that is as good as no work has done. No matter, it caused lot of mental trauma and inconvenience by keeping all the broken wood peices at home of the complainant, amounts to deficiency and OP has to compensate it. Considering the reasons mentioned above, the claim of the complainant for some of Rs.4,16,500/- is genuine and is entitled for that and even with 12% of interest per annum, instead 18% interest per annum. Complainant is also entitled to get compensation of RS.40,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience, hardship caused to complainant and his family, but he claimed Rs.10,00,000/- compensation which seems to be exorbitant. Complainant is entitled for cost of proceedings to Rs.10,000/- from OP who made complainant to take legal action instead he could attain the work as he agreed. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in partly affirmative. 

14. Point No.3:- Our findings on the basis of Point No.1&2, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is partly allowed.

2. OP shall pay Rs.4,16,500/- to the complainant with 12% of interest per annum from the date of 16.01.2020 till realisation.  

3. OP further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest of 10% per annum on Award amount from the date of expiry on 30 days.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 15^th day of MAY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;