Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  On 10/03/2017 the complainant execute an agreement with 1^st opposite party for the interior designing work of his house.  As per the said agreement a total cost of the work was Rs.19,07,684/- and the work would complete on or before 30/05/2017.  On 10/03/2017 and on 13/03/2017 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.8,50,000/- to the 1^st opposite party respectively for the said work.  It is contented that the 1^st opposite party completed only 10% of work and again demanded money for the purchase of materials he force to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 17/05/2017 and again Rs. 3,50,000/- on 06/06/2017 by cheques.  According to the complainant though the 1^st opposite party received this much of amount from the complainant they did not complete the work within time.  According to the complainant the non-completion of an agreed work by the 1^st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service on their side.  Hence, this complaint for allowing compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and refund of Rs.14,30,000/- and cost etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  The 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed a version.  The version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to the opposite party the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  According to him he has no knowledge about the agreement dated 10/03/2017 between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party there by such an agreement is not binding on him.  It is admitted that in order to do the work.  The 1^st opposite party purchased the building materials from the 2^nd opposite party where in he received an amount by way of cheque and on cash from the 1^st opposite party.  According to the 2^nd opposite party he has no relation with the complainant whereas he is not at all liable to the complainant and not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant.  The complainant filed another I.A.89/2017 to direct the 2^nd opposite party to produce correct address of the 1^st opposite party.  This Forum allowed the said IA and directed 2^nd opposite party to produce the correct address of the 1^st opposite party.  However complainant filed a petition for allowing paper publication (IA.5/2018) and the said IA was allowed by this Forum.  On 21/02/2016 this Forum declared ex parte against the 1^st opposite partyas per the said paper publication. Therefore this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

                   4. On the basis of the complainant, version of 2^nd opposite party and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.   

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext.A1 to A6 were also marked.  Ext.A1 is the agreement dated 10/03/2017.  Ext.A2 series are the cash receipts dated 06/02/2017.  Ext.A3 is the Acknowledgment receipt of petition dated 02/08/2017.  Ext.A4 is the contract agreement.  Ext.A5 is the quotation of the work dated nil.  Ext.A6 series are cash receipt of 5 in numbers.  Though this Forum granted ample time for the 2^nd opposite party to cross examine PW1 he did not turn up where by this Forum issued notice to the 2^nd opposite party for cross examining PW1.  It is seen that the 2^nd opposite party received notice from this Forum but not turned up as directed.

6. Point No.1: The 2^nd opposite party contended that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we peruse the evidence on records and pleadings of the complainant as well as the 2^nd opposite party it is to see that the complainant PW1 he who executed an agreement with 1^st opposite party as per Ext.A1 and also proved that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.14,30,000/- to the 1^st opposite party for the interior decoration work of his residential building.  The 2^nd opposite party specifically contented that he is not a party to the said agreement Ext.A1 and also contented that he has not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.  As far as the 2^nd opposite party is concerned the complainant is not a consumer of him.  On the basis of the above evidence we would like to find that this case is maintainable against the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is not at all a necessary party to the proceedings of this case.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from all charges and point no.1 found against the 1^st opposite party only.        

7. Point No.2&3:  For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No. 2&3 together.  As discussed earlier when we go through the proof affidavit of the complainant we can see that it is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  Ext.A1 is an agreement between PW1 and the complainant.  When we refer Ext.A1 it is to be understood that the mode of payment and details of the description of the work everything were elaborately explained.  As per Ext.A1 a grand total of Rs.19,07,864/- was totally estimated for the said work including all taxes.  Ext.A2 series are cash receipt to show the payment effected by the complainant in favour of the 1^st opposite party.  As per Ext.A2 series a total payment of Rs. 14,30,000/- can be seen in favour of the complaint.  Ext.A3 is a copy of the receipt of the complaint which was filed by PW1 before this CI of Police Thiruvalla.  Ext.A4 is an agreement with ‘Lucas India Industries’ with PW1 and Ext.A5 is the quotation related to Ext.A4.  As per Ext.A5 ‘Quotation of Lucas India Industries’ an estimate of Rs.12,91,610/- is required for the completion of the said work.  Ext.A6 series are the retail invoice of different shop which shows the price of materials which used for the construction. 

8. When we look into the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case we can see that the complainant he who entrusted the 1^st opposite party for the interior design work of his house and also paid an amount of Rs.14,30,000/- for the purpose.  It is deposed that though PW1 paid this much of amount to the 1^st opposite party he failed to complete the work within the time and also deposed that 1^st opposite party completed only 10% of the entire work.  We do admit that the complainant did not produce any expert report with regard to the 10% of work done by the 1^st opposite party.   Any way here 1^st opposite party did not appear before this Forum or raised any objection with regard to this complaint there by we would have to rely on the contention raised by PW1in this regard.  It is also bear in mind that as per Ext.A4 and A5 the complainant forced to entrust another agency for the completion of the internal work.  In the light of the available evidence discussed above we would find that though the complainant paid an amount of Rs.14,30,000/- for the purpose of the interior designing work the 1^st opposite party miserably failed to execute the agreement with in the specified time.  It is to see that the 1^st opposite party only completed 10% of the work as deposed or pleaded by PW1.  When considering the nature and circumstances of the case at this juncture there is any need of leniency towards the 1^st opposite party.   Therefore we find that the 1^st opposite party committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.  The complainant is also eligible for a reasonable compensation from the 1^st opposite party due to the delay caused for the completion of the work and also considering the mental strain which the complainant suffered for the completion of the work.  Hence point No. 2&3 found in favour of the complainant. 

                   9. In the result we pass the following orders.

                   1. The 1^st opposite party is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,87,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Only) (reducing 10% work done Rs.1,43,000/-) with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case onwards i.e. 21/08/2017.

2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order.   

                          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of November, 2018.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                           (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1: Jayan Mohan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1:  Agreement dated 10/03/2017.

A2 series:  Cash receipts dated 06/02/2017. 

A3:  Acknowledgment receipt of petition dated 02/08/2017.

A4: Contract agreement. 

A5: Quotation of the work dated nil.

A6 series: Cash receipt of 5 numbers. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                           (By Order)

        Copy to:-

           1. Jayan Mohan,

Koippurathu House, Eraviperoor.P.O., Thiruvalla.  

2. Unni Sasi,

                          Head Customer Department, Maria Enterprises,

                  Aattunikkal Archade,  Anjilithanam P.O.,

                  East Muthoor, Thiruvalla – 689 582.

                (Set Ex parte on 21.02.2018)

3. Aji George,

                  Managing Director, Maria Enterprises, Aattunikkal Arcades,

                  Anjilithanam P.O.,  East Muthoor, Thiruvalla – 689 582.

4. The Stock file.