Delhi

East Delhi

CC/942/2015

SANDEEP ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANNPRIYA DEWAN - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  942/15

 

Shri Sandeep Arora

S/o Shri S.D. Arora

R/o A-1-106, Tower-3

Royal Park, Sector-37

Noida, UP                                                                   ….Complainant

Vs.

Annpriya Dewan Innovation

F-7 (Basement), Lajpat Nagar-3

Behind Jagdish Store                                                       …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 15.12.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 18.01.2018

Judgement Passed on: 19.01.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Sandeep Arora against        Ms. Annpriya Dewan Innovation (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Sandeep Arora approached Ms. Annpriya Dewan Innovation (OP) for interior work and paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as security amount.  The balance was to be paid at the time of finalization of the work.  The complainant was shocked when he received a letter from the respondent where the mode of payment was entirely different.  He immediately visited the office of respondent, but he did not get any satisfactory reply.  He sent email to the respondent on 11.07.2015 which clearly mentioned:

 

“According to you will take 10-15 days in stage 1 and need 25% and again need 10-15 days for stage 2 and again need 25% which I feel is to delay in work and spend 50% on only paper work.

I don’t think its phisable for me to give 50% in advance without starting any work.  I suggest if you are interested and would like to do some genuine work with some genuine commitments than better rethink about the deal, I mean how I can pay 50% of advance without starting any civil or POP work or wooden work.

I suggest a deal you need money to be on your safe side and I need work to be on my priority.  I had seen your projects and have faith on your dealing (according to my experience), but you must be little scared as a first time dealing.

I give you 25% advance on the starting of the deal but I need within 7-10 days final drawings of the house.

At least final drawings should be discussed with the contractors of electrical, civil and pop on the 10^th day of executing the deal at that moment I will be supposed to give you more 25%.

So within 15 days you will be getting 50% of the deal but I will be the getting only the final drawings and final execution of work with that particular contractor by the time they finish their work, we need to finalize the wardrobes and fixed wooden fittings, bathrooms, servant rooms and Mandir room, at that time I am liable to give you more 25%.

While starting of the finishing work, I will give you more 10% and on the finalizing stage I will give you more 10% at the finalizing of loose furniture, soft furnishing and lights selection according to my calculation at this stage you will be having 95% and balance 5% on the completion of the project.  I SUGGEST YOU KEEP YOUR MIND ON THE TRAC.”   

 

            Thus, it has been stated that conduct of the respondent was highly illegal and there was deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs. 75,000/-; to pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and      Rs. 21,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.         In reply, respondent have taken various pleas such as the complaint does not disclose any cause of action; have not stated the correct facts; complainant approached the respondent’s office at Lajpat Nagar for professional services pertaining to design consultancy, project execution with design, intelligent spaces and concepts for the complainant’s flat located at Flat No. A-106, Purvanchal Royal Park, Sector-137, Noida admeasuring 2000 sq.ft.  Subsequently, an agreement dated 07.07.2015 was entered into between the parties and the total consideration for professional services was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-.  As per agreed terms, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- which was 25% of the total consideration.

            On receipt of the money from the complainant, the respondent prepared the presentations pertaining to design conceptualization, interior layout drawings etc. as per his requirements.  On 27.07.2015, the complainant requested the respondent to start work at a Pent House at Purvanchal Royal Park, Sector-137, Noida, however, the respondent stated that the work pertaining to Flat No. A-106, Purvanchal Royal Park, Sector-137, Noida in respect of design conceptualization, interior layout drawings etc. was already over.  However the respondent acceded to the request of the complainant and a fresh agreement dated 27.07.2015 was executed and the consideration of contract was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the area of the Pent House.  As per this agreement, the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to start the work.  The complainant requested to adjust Rs. 75,000/- in the new project, pertaining to the Pent House.  The said request was acceded and a balance of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to the respondent.  The respondent again started working on the new project and prepared interior layout drawings for the Pent House, which comprised of two floors.  He also gave two different options to the complainant. 

            Thereafter, from 29.07.2015 to 17.08.2015, the respondent tried to contact the complainant, but there was no response.  Subsequently, on 25.08.2016, the complainant gave a message via Whatsapp stating that he has dropped his plan of getting his work done.  It is stated that OP have completed her part of contract at Stage-1 of the contract and Stage-2 could not be initiated as the complainant did not pay the consultancy fee of Stage-2 i.e. 25% of the total consideration.  The respondent asked the complainant to clear the balance payment, but the complainant did not pay any further amount for the subsequent stage.  Hence, the work came to a standstill due to non-compliance on the part of the complainant.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Jasbir Singh, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the Ws.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of document showing that respondent is the sole-proprietor Innovation through SPA (Ex.RW1/A), presentation (Ex.RW1/B) and two different options to the complainant (Ex.RW1/C).

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there was no cause of action and the complainant have not complied with the terms of agreement.  If the evidence on record is perused, it is noticed that the complainant have paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- for consultancy services which have been provided by OP.  The complainant have not adhered to the terms of agreement which OP have provided.  Since the complainant have not taken any steps to get the work executed, the question of any deficiency on the part of OP does not arise.  It may be a case of specific performance, but not a case of deficiency in services.  That being so, the complaint of the complainant fails, which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President