Date of filing : 11.06.2018
Date of Judgement: 25.02.2020
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon,ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of the C. P. Act., 1986 by Bapi Paira alleging deficiency in service on the past of the opposite party ( referred as OP hereinafter ) namely Sri Narayan Das.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into an agreement on 18.11.2017 with OP to install iron grill, steel grill, on the stair case of a two storied building owned by the complainant and also to ins tall sliding glass and to complete some repairing work and accordingly agreed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- as per said agreement and paid RS. 70,000/- s advance amount for the said work. The complainant has stated that it was agreed between then the parties that the balance amount of RS. 50,000/- would be paid in following manner Rs30,000/- would be paid after completion of entire work within one month and Rs. 20,000/- would be paid by Monthly Instalment of Rs. 2,000/- and receiving advance amount the OP started conducting said work but after sometime left the job keeping the same in unfinished state and sensing the malafied intention of the OP the complainant lodged complaint with Chetla P. S. and also Parnashree P.S. on 2.2.2018 & 06.03.2018 respectively and sent legal notice through the Ld. Advocate Arup Kumar Syamal on 15.3.2018 and in response to the said letter the OP sent reply dt. 19.03.2018 through Ld. Advocate Mr. Basudeb Ghosh stating that the OP incurred expenditure of Rs. 41,000/- and due to the direction of the complainant had to stop work and material already purchased for conducting the agreed job had been damaged.
The complainant has further stated he by letter dt. 26.03.2018 requested the OP to submit statement of accounts and to refund the balance amount but inspite receiving the same the OP remained silent and being aggrieved the complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund Rs.43,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
The complaint has been annexed with agreement dt. 18.11.2017, complaint lodged with Parnasree P.S. and Chetla P.S., Advocate’s letter dt. 15.03.2018, reply issued from the end of the OP on 26.03.2018 and the reply dt.19.03.2018 issued from the end of the Opposite Party.
The OP contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that OP being a contractor agreed to do the job for installation of iron griells, steel grills etc. In the two storied building owned by the complainant at a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/- but in the hand written agreement it was shown as Rs. 1,20,000/- which was written by the complainant and under which both the parties put their respective signature in the said agreement. The OP has further stated that under the said signature the complainant with malafide intention incorporated some line unilaterally which was not within the knowledge of the OP. It is stated by the OP that he was engaged with some works to be done at the house of complainant’s sister and an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is yet to be paid by the sister of the complainant and on instruction of the complainant the OP carried out the work at the house of complainant’s sister but suddenly the OP was asked by the complainant not to do any work in his residence even though the OP requested the complainant to keep patience and to collect the outstanding amount to be paid by his sister and to keep the same with himself. But that request yielded no fruitful result rather the complainant lodged complaint with Chetla P.S. and Parnasree P.S. and sent demand notice which is illegal and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.
Both the parties adduced evidence followed by cross-examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
Both parties filed Brief Notes of Argument.
Points for determination –
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP.
- Whether then complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
The complainant claimed that an Agreement was executed by and between the parties on 18.11.2017 for installation of grills, sliding glass as mentioned in the said agreement in the house of the complainant at a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- . The OP by filing written version has stated that as per verbal discussion an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- was fixed as entire consideration amount for completion of entire job mentioned in the said Agreement. It appears from the copy of Agreement dt. 18.11.2017 that both the parties execute d the agreement by putting their respective signature on the said agreement and as per terms of the said agreement entire consideration amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs.1,20,000/-. It further appears from documents on record that the complainant paid Rs. 70,000/- as advance on 18.11.2017 and remaining amount was to be paid in the following manner :-Rs. 30,000/- out of remaining Rs. 50,000/- would be paid after completion of work as per said agreement and Rs. 20,000/- would be paid by equated monthly instalments @ Rs.2,000/- by the complainant.
The complainant alleged that the OP in violation of the said agreement did not complete the job specified in the agreement even on receiving request from the end of the complainant.
The OP, in his defence, has stated that there was no time limit mentioned in the said agreement and the OP was busy with some work carried out in the house of the complainant’s sister since a marriage ceremony was to be held there in the house of his sister and being furious the complainant refused to take his service and demanded refund of the money though the he did not receive Rs. 30,000/- from the complaint’s sister . It is evident from the abovementioned averment of the OP that the OP did not provide service to the complainant as per terms of the said agreement dt. 18.11.2017 as he was busy carrying out some other job to the house of complainant’s sister . In our view, that is a different issue and the complainant cannot be held responsible for the same.
The OP has alleged that the agreement dt. 18.11.2017 was written by the complainant and the lines incorporated below the signature was manufactured by the complainant. On perusal of the written version and evidence filed by the OP it appears that the OP never denied execution of the agreement but raised objection regarding those lines where declaration for refund has been made. However, without going into that part of the agreement if we take the averment made by the OP it becomes clear that the OP inspite of receiving request from the end of the complainant failed and neglected to perform his job. It is well settled that a person cannot wait for endless time for availing promised service for which he has already made part payment. Moreover, the complainant entered into agreement on 18.11.2017 and being aggrieved approached this Form on 11.6.2018.
Under such state of affairs , we are inclined to hold that the OP is deficient in providing service and therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of RS.43,000/-.
Regarding compensation, in our view, it will be justified and proper if an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded. Further, the OP compelled the complainant to file the instant case so the OP is liable to pay litigation cost.
Point Nos. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered
That CC/342/2018 is allowed on contest. The OP is directed to refund Rs. 43,000/- to the complainant within two months. The OP is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost within abovementioned period in default the entire amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order.
