DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _79 _ OF 2018
DATE OF FILING : 3.7.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT:18.3.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Md. Sattar Ali Molla, son of late Md. Monajat Ali Molla of Village- Madhabpur (Nolmuri), P.S Bhangore, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743502.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Transterior Design and Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of 19th floor, 9A, Chatterjee International Centre, Park Street, 33A, Jahar Lal Nehru Road, P.S Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.
2. Mr. Bhaskar Banik, Director, M/s Transterior Design and Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of 19th floor, 9A, Chatterjee International Centre, Park Street, 33A, Jahar Lal Nehru Road, P.S Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.
3. Smt. Sneha Dutta, Operation Director, M/s Transterior Design and Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of 19th floor, 9A, Chatterjee International Centre, Park Street, 33A, Jahar Lal Nehru Road, P.S Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant run as follows.
There was an agreement reached between the complainant and the O.P-1 company and by virtue of that agreement, O.P nos. 2 and 3 who are the directors of O.p-1 agreed to do some interior works in the house of the complainant. The complainant also paid Rs.2,05,000/- to the O.Ps as advance for the said interior design works at the residence of the complainant at Village Madhabpur (Nalmuri). The O.Ps executed the work; but in the mid way, the complainant stopped the said work on the ground that the work was not done by skilled person. Now, the complainant has demanded return of the money advanced to the O.Ps by him and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps have filed written statement, wherein, it is contended inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, the case is not maintainable in law. The positive case as made out in the written statement is that the O.Ps received Rs.2,05,000/- from the complainant as advance for the interior design works and have also executed the work to the extent of Rs.1,46,600/-. It is the further case of the O.Ps that they have also given one Sofa of Rs.12000/- and Wall Paper of Rs.7000/- to the complainant. They are ready and willing to refund the balance consideration price to the complainant.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their evidence on affidavit and the same are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers, appearing for the parties. Ld. Lawyer ,appearing for the O.P, has contended that the agreement was reached between the son of the complainant and the O.Ps and it is the complainant’s son namely Md. Rafikul Molla who made payment of Rs.5000/- to the O.P on the very first day of the agreement. According to him, the money receipt filed on record by the complainant also shows that it is Md. Rafikul Molla who made payment of Rs.5000/- by cash on 20.6.2017 to the O.Ps. So, to him, Md. Rafikul Molla is the consumer; but, the complainant being father of Md. Rafikul Molla can never be regarded as a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986.
It appears that there is sum and substance in the contention of the Ld. Lawyer, appearing for the O.P. The money was paid by Md. Rafikul Molla. So, Md. Rafikul Molla is the consumer and his father i.e the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer. This being so, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in law.
Point no.1 is thus primarily answered against the complainant.
Point no.2 & 3 :
Assuming for a moment that the complaint is maintainable in law, yet the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. It is the case of the O.P that he has executed the decoration work and in course of execution of such work, he has already incurred an expense of Rs.1,46,000/-. The further contention of the O.P is that the decoration work has been stopped by the complainant in the mid way , the reason is best known to him. The complainant has snapped the agreement with the O.Ps in the mid way and this fact has not been denied by the complainant in his evidence. Breach of agreement before the completion of the period of agreement is a kind of deficiency in service and that deficiency has been caused by the complainant himself.
Upon perusal of the facts and materials on record, it is found that the O.P has executed the decoration work to the considerable extent and, therefore, the O.Ps cannot be held guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. It is the complainant who has committed the breach of the contract and thus he has made himself guilty of deficiency in service . This being so, the complainant is deemed to be not entitled to relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without any cost.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
