BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.349 of 2013 against CC 245 of 2011 District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad
Between:
P. Arul Kumaran,
S/o late R. Paramanandam
Aged 38 years, R/o Flat no. 201,
Park view GS apartments, OPP HDFC Bank
Srinagar colony, Hyderabad – 500 073
Presently residing at
P. Arul Kumaran, s/o late Paramanandam,
Aged 40 years, R/o Flat no. 202, B block
Vishnu’s Splendor
Srinagar colony, Hyderabad – 500 073 .. complainant
And
01. M/s. Vivant Int. solutions
A partnership Firm having its office at
Flat no. N-1, plot no. 376/P, Ground Floor
Mantho Shree Apts, Road no. 82, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad -32 , rep. by its Managing partner
02. Sri R. Rajendra Prasad, Managing Partner
M/s. Vivant Int. Solutions
Flat no. N-1, Plot no. 376/P, Ground Floor
Mantho Shree apts, road no. 82, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad – 32 .. opposite parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. M. Sudheer Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. C. S. N. Raju for R1 & R2
F.A.No.360 of 2013 against CC 245 of 2011 District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad
Between:
01. M/s. Vivant Int. solutions
Rep. by its Managing partner
R. R.Rajendra Prasad, having its office at
Flat no. N-1, plot no. 376/P, Ground Floor
Mantho Shree Apts, Road no. 82, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad -32 ,
02. Sri R. Rajendra Prasad, Managing Partner
M/s. Vivant Int. Solutions
Flat no. N-1, Plot no. 376/P, Ground Floor
Mantho Shree apartments, road no. 82, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad – 32 .. opposite parties
And
P. Arul Kumaran,
S/o late R. Paramanandam
Aged 40 years, R/o Flat no. 202
B block, Vishnu’s Splendor,
Srinagar colony, Hyderabad – 500 073 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. C. S. N. Raju
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. M. Sudheer Kumar
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI. R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. FA 349 OF 2013 and FA 360 of 2013 are the cross appeals preferred by the complainant and the opposite parties respectively against the order of the District Forum III, Hyderabad in CC 245 of 2011. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he agreed with the opposite parties for designing supply and execution of interior designing of medium quotation in his newly purchased flat no. 202, block B, Vishnu’s Splendor at Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. The opposite parties did not provide the storage facility as asked by the complainant, even the work done by the OP. 1 is defective and the alignment of the door was not matching, the wardrobe shutters were made with heavy material due to which the same could not be opened by a single individual. The colour of the veneer on the wood work at all placed except the guest room. When the complainant pointed out the defects, the opposite parties stopped the work in the month of November, 2010 without any intimation. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties resisted the claim and admitted that the complainant entrusted them to design, supply and execute the interior designing in the newly purchased flat of the complainant. They have executed all the work of interior designing in the flat. The wood work was got done by the complainant. The complainant pointed out the defective in order to avoid the payment. The second opposite party is always ready to negotiate with the complainant. The complainant in USA to avoid payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of his claim, the complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A15 and on behalf of the opposite party, its managing partner filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B4.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to complete the interior work as agreed by the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs.2,96,955/- by the complainant
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider that the left over interior work was done by some other agency and that the opposite parties have not expressed their willingness at any point of time to complete the work and prayed to allow the complaint and set aside the impugned order.
7. The opposite parties by filing the appeal grounds contended that the District Forum failed to consider that the complainant prevented the opposite parties from completing the work as per the agreed schedule. The complainant instead of depositing the amounts preferred appeal and the period of increased costs also have to be borne by him and thus prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order.
8 The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law ?
9. The opposite party challenged the order of the District Forum on the premise that the District Forum failed to consider that it is on account of the complainant the work of the apartment was stopped and further it is their contention that the complainant failed to deposit the balance amount as directed by the District Forum. The complainant assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that the District Forum failed to consider his plea brought to its notice at the time of oral arguments that the interior work of the Flat was already completed through some other agency and the direction to the opposite party at a belated stage to complete the interior work where the opposite party has no expertise in the field is unjust and the order of the District Forum is unworkable in the light of the fact that the opposite party has not expressed its willingness to complete the work as also it contended that the interior work was completed by some other agency.
10. The complainant, in his application referred to the pending work of the Apartment and necessity for making an inventory as also the issuance of the notice dated 24.03.2011 for the same purpose, i.e., for the opposite parties to prepare inventory of the pending work and verification of the work already completed by the time. The complainant has not referred to any agency thorough which the pending work stated to have been completed. In paragraph (9 ) of the affidavit off the pendency of the interior work and consequent effect on them to stay back in a rented house is stated as under:
“ The additional works were taken up by the Ops voluntarily and we never forced them to take up those works. The Ops have no expertise in the field and they are playing with the innocent consumers and extracting huge amounts and cheating the public. The allegation that bending of the sliding doors was because of exposing the wardrobe to the chaining weather without fixing the veneer and without polishing is false. The two sliding doors in Master bed room and master bed room toilet are completed with veneer and polish. It is only because of the defective execution and defective designing they were bent. The immaturity of the OP no. 2 is very much evidence from the unscrupulous comments made by him against the complainant and his wife. All the defects and deficiencies pointed out in the complaint are existing even before the Ops left the premises on their own in November, 2010 and there are no new problems fo complaint pointed out now. I have performed my part of the contract and it is only the Ops who have failed to render service properly and with expertise which is expected of them. The contention of the Ops that I have entrusted the work to some other agency in not correct. The work is stand still since November, 2010. Thus the further allegations that work allotted to some other party is also in litigation is false and that question does not arise”.
11. The opposite party has stated that they had completed the work except the remaining 10% of the interior work of the Flat which could not be completed due to the sudden change in the attitude of the complainant who demanded them to stop the work and move out of the Flat and as such the pending work was left not completed. In paragraphs 6 to 8 of the affidavit of the opposite party the pendency of the work and the circumstances leading therefor, are described as follows:
“ I was always ready to talk to the complainant and even in January, 2011 I had visited them, but the complainant said as he was leaving to the USA he would meet met later and talk about the restarting of the work. From the passport of the complainant it is clear that the complainant lied that he was going to USA only to avoid the payments for the already done work and to file this false case. I further submit that the wardrobe in the children’s bed room is only as per the approved sample, but is yet to be completed and now saying that it is contrary to the approved one is utterly false. The wood work done in the Guest bedroom is not defective as alleged by the complainant. The wardrobe shutters were made with the best material available and as per the approval of the complainant and his wife Mrs. Vidya. The difficulty in opening is because of the absence of hardware and fixtures as I was aksed to leave the premises before fixing the necessary fixtures. The complainant at a later stage had asked for providing of storage facilities in the drawing room and foyer which was not feasible as I could nto find enough space to accommodate the same. The complainant’s wife Mrs. Vidya had always suggested changes after a particular item was about to be completed and not in the beginning when the work was done as per the approved design and thereby the expenses doubled. I further submit that all the works in the said project were done as per the prior approval of the complainant and his wife Mrs. Vidya. Some of the works are yet to be completed and before the completion of the same I was asked to move out of the said site and thereby resulting in some incomplete works for which the complainant is alone responsible ad no one else. The investment made is higher than what is paid by the complainant and he is still in due of some amounts to be paid to me “.
12. The complainant has not stated the agency through which the pending interior work of the Flat was got completed as also the complainant failed to state the period during which the incomplete construction work of the Flat was completed. There is no evidence on record except the grounds of appeal directed against the District Forum attributing failure to the District Forum not to consider his plea of completion of the pending work. Even the complainant has not stated in the appeal the name of agency which completed the pending interior work and the period during which the work was completed. All these facts would strengthen the circumstances under which the District Forum came to the conclusion that the interior work of the Apartment was at unfinished stage. The District Forum observed:
“Based on the circumstances of the case, we conclusively arrive at decision that the left over work is still left unfinished and not entrusted to any one. In a summary procedure before this Forum, it would be difficult to establish the extent of the work executed by the opposite parties and to direct the refund of the amount on item wise and it is understood that there is a communication gap between the complainant and opposite parties. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, in order to ensure that both the parties are treated equitably we decide the matter with the following directions. The opposite parties shall complete the interior works as agreed by them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. At the same time, the complainant is directed to deposit in this Forum the balance amount of Rs.2,96,955/- to be paid to the opposite parties as agreed upon”.
13. Thus, the District Forum is right in coming to the conclusion that the pendency of the interior work has to be completed by the opposite party . The District Forum had taken into consideration the circumstances leading to stoppage of the interior work of the Flat and the District Forum has also taken into consideration of the liability of the opposite party to bear the escalated charges and the District Forum opined that the compensation to be awarded has to be met out of the amount under the head of escalated charges which in the view of the District Forum would be adjusted meaning no party would be liable to pay any amount to the other except the balance consideration of Rs.2,96,955/- payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. The escalation charges are adjusted towards the amount to be awarded as compensation and it is observed :
“In the present case due to delay in execution of the work, the complainant has undergone mental agony, harassment and also incurred pecuniary loss. However, taking note of the prevailing market conditions as the cost of the material and the labour charges increased in the market which increased the cost of work for executing the work. We therefore, consider that the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant is to be compensated by the opposite parties by bearing all the increased costs for completion of work. No extra money can be demanded from the complainant. After completing the works on the terms agreed upon by both parties, the opposite parties are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited before this Forum by serving notice to the complainant “
14. The complainant or the opposite parties have failed to show any irregularity in the order of the District Forum in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant was due an amount of Rs.2,96,955/- to the opposite parties for the purpose of carrying out the pending interior work of the Flat. We do not any merit in the appeals filed by both the parties and as such both appeals are liable to be dismissed.
15 In the result, the appeals, F.A.No.349 of 2013 and FA 360 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
DT : 13.08.2014
