By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint is short is as follows:-
1. The complainant entrusted the first opposite party for interior work of his house in connection with the marriage of his son Mr. Afeef. The opposite party after examining the works to be carried out agreed to finish the work before 10/05/2017, on which the date of marriage of the son was fixed. The opposite party was entrusted to carry out work with multiwood wall drobes in certain portion and using aluminum ACP sheet in the kitchen and also glass work in the room over the terrace. On 24/04/2017 the opposite party issued quotation and a piece of plywood sheet as sample of the material to be used for the interior work. The opposite party started the work but it was found the work was started with a different quality plywood and the complainant complaint about it. Thereafter on 27/04/2017 and on 03/05/2017 the opposite party brought the materials as agreed at the time of issuing quotation and the work was completed. But no painting work was done as agreed. The opposite party had agreed to complete the work before 10/05/2017 but he stopped his work without doing panting work. The opposite party had agreed to do 162 Sq.ft aluminum work but he completed only 99 sqft work. The total agreed amount for the work was Rs.1,79,250/- including painting work. The complainant had given a total amount of Rs.1,36,280/- which was received by the opposite party before 05/05/2017. As per the quotation the terms was to issue 25% of the amount after completion of the work. So the complainant submit that the opposite party had collected more than 75% amount towards the expense of the work. The complainant submit that he is bound to pay Rs.42,750/- to the opposite party towards the entire work. Hence the prayer of the complainant is that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and he was insulted before the neighbours and relatives. He prays for 1,00,000/- towards the completion of remaining work through third party. The complainant prays compensation of 2,00,000/- rupees on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony and inconvenience. He also prays cost of Rs.10,000/-
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the first opposite party and he entered appearance and filed version.
3. The first opposite party filed version denying the allegations and averments in the complaint. The first opposite party submitted that the establishment M/s Hana Interior & Exterior is not the establishment owned by the first opposite party but belongs to his brother Mr. Nishad who is a person with 80% disability. The first opposite party is only an employee of the Hana Interior & Exterior. His brother started the establishment for his lively hood. Since the brother of the first opposite party was not able to run the establishment alone the opposite party extended his assistance to carry out the duties of his brother. The first opposite party admitted that he had worked in the house of the complainant and there was several other workers also. The first opposite party never under taken any work of the complainant and never caused any inconvenience or hardship or any cause to mental agony by the act of the first opposite party.
4. The first opposite party submitted that the opposite party never undertaken 164Sq.ft multi wood wall drobes work or 162sqft aluminum work and no quotation was given to the complainant. The claim of the complainant that multi wood wall drobes about 164 Sq.ft including painting for Rs.90,200, 162 Sq.ft aluminum work for Rs 85,050/- steel draw of Rs. 4,000/- altogether work for Rs.1,79,250/- is not correct, hence denied.
5. The averment in the complaint that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 24/04/2017 as advance , for payment of plywood bill on 27/04/2017 Rs.27,100/-, to advance to a worker namely Mr. Abdulla 15,000/- paid 01/05/2017, on the same day paid Rs.8,000/- for purchasing inches and lock 22,350/- rupees, on 03/05/2017 towards purchase of plywood Rs.13,930/-, on 05/05/2017 to purchase lock , aluminum , ACP sheet i.e., altogether 1,36,380/- rupees paid to the opposite party is not correct hence denied. The opposite party has not issued any quotation and the complainant has not produced any receipt for the payment also. The opposite party also contended that the document produced by the complainant does not bear the signature or seal of his brother or the establishment. His brother has not issued a document produced by the complainant. The opposite party also contended that averment of the complaint regarding the payment of amount is contradictory. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is bound to pay some amount towards the work carried out in the residence of the complainant M/s Hana Interior & Exterior. The opposite party denied that the complainant was dragged to the police station by the opposite party is not correct. The complainant was called to the police station on the basis of a complaint filed by the brother Mr. Nishad on account of non- payment of money by the complainant to his brother. On the basis of police complaint the work cared out at the residence of the complainant was verified and found that complainant is bound to pay some amount to the brother but he did not cared to pay the same and only because of the complaint before the police station this consumer complaint has been filed. It is also submitted that the brother of opposite party Mr. Nishad filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum on 14/08/2017. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that no act of the opposite party caused any inconvenience or hardship or mental agony to the complainant or his family members. The aim of the complaint is to escape from the liability from payment of amount which is due to the brother Nishad by the complainant
Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
6. The second opposite party filed an application to get him impleaded in the complaint since he was managing the establishment called M/s Hana Interior & Exterior and he was impleaded as second opposite party.
7. The second opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint and submitted that M/s Hana Interior and exterior is owned by him and not belongs to first opposite party Mr. Ansar. Second opposite party produced to establish the same a copy of license A10/324/17-18 of dated 18/07/2017 issued from Angadipuram Grama Panchayat. The opposite party also submitted a document issued by the medical board certifying 80% disability for him. He submitted that he is being physically disabled he sought assistance of his younger brother Mr. Ansar, the first opposite party. The first and second opposite parties are conducting the establishment for their lively hood and no other source of income for the opposite parties.
8. The second opposite party submitted that the complainant entrusted the work to M/s Hana interior & exterior, owned by him and not entrusted the first opposite party. The complainant came to the second opposite party at his establishment and requested interior decoration works of his house to be done 10/05/2017 since his son’s marriage was fixed to that day. Thereafter the opposite parties along with employees went to the house of the complainant and verified works to be carried out at his house. The opposite party told the complainant that they cannot finish the work before 10/05/2017. The complainant insisted opposite parties to carry out work doing overtime engagements and if any work remains on the stipulated date it can be finished after the marriage of complainant’s son. Realizing the pathetic situation of the complainant the opposite parties under took to carry out the work.
9. The complainant suggested the materials to be used for the work and the opposite parties explained the cost of the work. It was also stated the overtime wage of Rs 1,000/- in consultation with son of the complainant. The complainant entrusted second opposite party to commence the work. As per the suggestions made by the complainant the material to be used was ascertained and fixed the rate. The complainant had also agreed for over time wage. The opposite party submitted that they never issued quotation to the complainant or any piece of sample of plywood to the complainant. The opposite party stated that the quotation produced by the complainant do not bear the signature or seal and not it is given by the opposite parties. The opposite parties disputed the veracity of bills produced by the complainant since they do not bear the name, seal or signature. The bills do not reveal that from where it is purchased, whether it was used to work at the complainant’s residence or the bill paid by the complainant himself or not. The complainant manipulated the above said documents and the original documents are the documents produced by the opposite party.
10. The materials were selected by the complainant directly from the shop and the opposite party has done the work as per the instruction of the complainant.
11. The opposite party submit that the complainant had agreed to pay 1,00,000/- to the opposite party in advance but he paid only 50,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount during the progress of work. Believing the words the opposite party purchased the materials from the shop agreeing to pay later and the work was done under the supervision of the complainant. The opposite party did the work realizing the situation of the complainant and his honest behavior. But subsequently it was found the complainant was clever fully evading from payment of agreed amount .The opposite party finished all the works except painting during the first week of May itself. Since the opposite party could not make prompt payment he was not able to purchase painting articles and so approached the complainant but he did not issue money to the opposite party and told that he will make payment after the marriage of complainant’s son. Meanwhile the opposite party had finished multiword sheet work up to the extend 254 Sq.ft. and had finished 119 Sq.ft work of aluminum fabrication. The opposite party had also finished work of wall drobes with 9 drawyers worth 3,000/- rupees per. According to opposite party already he had entitled 2,55,300/- from the complainant except Rs.25,000/- for the painting work. But the complainant did not give the money to the opposite party even after days of complainant’s son’s marriage. The complainant misbehaved towards the first opposite party and threatened that he will file complaint against the opposite parties. He also started to find out drawbacks and complaints against the materials selected by the complainant himself and the work done as per his instruction. The opposite party submit that due to non-payment of cost of the articles the shop owners came to his office and also at his residence repeatedly. Opposite party is not able to avail articles from the shops to carry out other works which he had under taken. Due to financial issues the opposite party and his family struggling for discharging the liability pending with shops and employees. So the opposite party approached various persons and organizations’ to solve the issue but there was no solution. At last, the opposite party filed complaint before Perinthalmanna Police station and they verified issue and found his complaint as correct. But the complainant did not co-operate and so the issue is pending without resolution. The opposite party submitted that he is entitled Rs.2,15,900/- towards multiword work and 27,000/- towards wall drobes works. Opposite party claims Rs.71,400/- for aluminum fabrication work and over time as wage as Rs16,000/-. Since complainant had advanced 50,000/- rupees and cost of pending works of painting worth Rs..25,000/-, the opposite party claims 2,55,300/- from the complainant. The non-payment of the money to the opposite parties caused them much hardships and inconvenience especially the opposite party being physically disabled person. The opposite party had filed a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police and as per the proceedings the complainant was remanded in the matter. The opposite party produced copy of FIR dated 25/07/2018 registered by Perinthalmanna Police and also produced copy of remand report. The opposite party filed a suit before the Perinthalmann Muncif court as O.S.03/2020 and which is pending. Hence the submission of the second opposite party is that the complaint is baseless and the complainant trying to escape from the liability towards the opposite party and for that purpose only the complaint is filed.
12. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 & A2 is quotation issued by Hana Interior & Exterior for Rs.1,79,250/- without date. Ext. A3 is copy of estimate dated 27/04/2017 issued to Ansar with phone number 9947591996 along with ledger of Ansar from 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018. Ext. A4 is copy of estimate dated 03/05/2017 issued to Ansar. Ext. A5 is copy of estimate for Rs.13,843/- issued to Ansar Pariyapurm. Opposite party filed documents Ext. B1 to B7. Ext. B1 is copy of D &O licenese dated 18/07/2017. Ext. B2 is copy of certificate of physically handicapped issued to Mr. Nishad. Ext. B3 is copy of complaint submitted before Superintendent of Police Malappuram dated 18/03/2015. Ext. B4 is copy of remand report Perinthalmanna Police. Ext. B5 is copy of O.S.03/2020, Munssif court Perinthalmanna Ext. B6 series (9 in number) are copies of cash/credit invoice issued by classic aluminum center and others to Ansar. Ext. B7 is copy of F.I.R 408/2018 dated 25/05/2018 of Perinthalmann Police station. Commissioners’ report marked as Ext. C1 and Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1.
13. Heard the complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavits and documents and stood for consideration of following points: -
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2) Relief and cost?
14. Point No.1 &2
The grievance of the complainant is that he entrusted opposite parties for interior work of his house and that to be completed before 10/05/2017. But the opposite parties did not carry out the work as agreed between them. The opposite parties agreed that there was engagement to carry out the interior work of the complainant. The complainant submitted that it was first opposite party who undertake the work to carry out. The complainant produced Ext. A2, a quotation issued by the opposite party. But the document does not bear the date or signature. But it is issued in a letter head “Hana, Interior & exterior, near St. Mary’s High School, Pariyapuram, E-mail: hanainteriorspym@gmail .com, mobile number 9947591996, 9539637787, 9497634226”. The rear side of A2 document finds some calculations in which total figure is 1,36,380/-. It is also noted a difference in calculation as 42,870/-. The case of the complainant is that as per the quotation the total amount to be paid for the work was assessed as Rs.1,79,250/-.The complainant submitted that he had paid 1,36,380 rupees to the opposite party. As per the quotation he is liable to pay 25% of the total amount after completion of the work.
15. In this complaint the opposite parties admitted that the work was not finished since the painting was left. Except painting works all other works had completed according to the opposite party. The complainant also admit that opposite party had done the work except painting. The complainant issued a commission in the matter and the commission filed a report which is marked as Ext. C1 and the commissioner was examined as CW1. The commissioner reported that painting works not completed and there was some complaint to the work done by the opposite party. She has reported that some gape between the sheets and vanity inside the sheet used in the kitchen. She has stated that the opposite party agreed to replace the same. She also reported color changes for the doors. In short, the commissioner reported defects in the work as well as non-completion of the work.
16. The opposite parties contended that the document called as quotation produced by complainant is manipulated one and it was not issued by the opposite parties .At the same time the opposite parties as not produced any document to show the details of transactions regarding the undertaking of interior work of the complainant. The complainant initially filed this complaint against first opposite party alone and thereafter the second opposite party appeared before the commission with a petition to get him impleaded since he was being the real person who under taken to carry out the work of the complainant. The first opposite party contended that he was really working under the second opposite party, the elder brother of first of opposite party. He is also supporting second opposite party to perform the obligations of second opposite party since he is a man of physically disabled at a high rate of 80%. The second opposite party is also admitting that he is the licensee of the so-called Hana Inferior and Exterior. He produced Ext. B1 copy of license to substantiate the same and also produced Ext. B2 to prove his disability. So there is no doubt that second opposite party was the licensee of Hana Interior an exterior and he is having 80% physical disability. Complainant produced Exts. A3, A4 and A5. All these documents are estimate issued to Ansar with mobile number 9947591996 they are dated 27/04/2017, 03/05/2017, 04/05/2017 respectively. Opposite party has got a case the complainant manipulated all the documents. But the Mr. Ansar is none other than the first opposite party and his phone number also find a place in Ext. A2, the letter head. So it is not proper to discard as manipulated one but it was issued as part of the transaction between complainant and opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the work to the first opposite party. From the averment in the version as well as affidavits of all the parties the first opposite party was working as part of the engagement as well as on behalf of the second opposite party. Even though the license was in the name of second opposite party there is every chance to believe that the first opposite party is responsible for the acts and omissions of Hana Interior and Exterior. The understating between the parties to carry out the work was not after the verification of licensee name .
17. It can be seen that this consumer complaint was filed by the complainant on 24/06/2017 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite party filed another complaint before this commission after two months of this present complaint. It can be seen that the complaint filed by the opposite party was withdrawn later. It is also argued for the counsel for the complainant that after filing this complaint the opposite party approached District Superintendent Police and there after Perinthalmanna Police. The complainant was undergone remand as part of proceedings before Perinthalmanna Police. Now it can be seen that there is a civil suit O.S 03/2020 before Perinthalmanna Munciff court to recovery of the amount from the complainant .The opposite party has got right to proceed to recover the amount which is entitled by him from the complainant. But this consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service and for recovery of compensation. The complainants counsel argued that the second opposite party was never in the picture while giving quotation of doing work in the complainant’s house. According to him the second opposite party came in the picture only after filing this complaint by the complainant. The first opposite party bargaining before this Consumer Commotion using the physical incapability of the second opposite party to escape from the deficiency in service committed by the first opposite party. The opposite parties initiated all the proceedings before the consumer Forum, District Superintendent of Police and at last before the Munciff court Perinthalmanna .
18. Considering the entire aspects, documents and affidavits and the chronological order of the incident we find that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. All the proceedings was initiated subsequent to filing this consumer complaint. The complainant is entitled for the compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The Commission report Ext. C1 and the documents submitted by the complainant Ext. A2 to A5 establish the same.
19. It is the admitted fact that the opposite party has done his work except painting as agreed between the parties in time. The commissioner has noted that some defects in the work of the opposite party and some defects to the material used for the work . Commissioner has reported that the opposite party agreed to rectify the defect also. So it can be seen that the dispute between the parties as per the document is with slight edge. The opposite party raised huge claim as arrears from the complainant which is not at all supported by any piece of evidence. So we do not find any merit in the contention of the opposite parties. It is also to be noted that there is a contention that the complainant was admitted to carry out the remaining work of painting after the marriage of the son but after the agreed date i.e. after the date of marriage the parties turned in to a hostile term and began to agitate. So we consider the evidence before the commission and direct the first opposite party to give compensation to the complainant on account of defective work and deficiency in service. The first opposite party could not carry out the work in time as agreed between the complainant and first opposite party and so there is deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. Ext. C1 shows that there was defect in the work of the opposite party and on that account also the first opposite party is liable to compensate complainant. Hence we allow the complaint as follows: -
- The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant on account of defective as well as deficient service and thereby caused hardships and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
- The first opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1 & A2 : Quotation issued by Hana Interior & Exterior for Rs.1,79,250/- without
date.
Ext A3 : Copy of estimate dated 27/04/2017 issued to Ansar with phone number
9947591996 along with ledger of Ansar from 01/04/2017 to 31/03/2018.
Ext A4 : Copy of estimate dated 03/05/2017 issued to Ansar.
Ext A5 : Copy of estimate for Rs.13,843/- issued to Ansar Pariyapurm.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : DW1 and DW2
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B
Ext.B1 : Copy of D &O licenese dated 18/07/201
Ext.B2 : Copy of certificate of physically handicapped issued to Mr. Nishad.
Ext.B3 : Copy of complaint submitted before Superintendent of Police Malappuram dated
18/03/2015.
Ext.B4 : Copy of remand report Perinthalmanna Police.
Ext.B5 : Copy of O.S.03/2020, Munssif court Perinthalmanna
Ext.B6 : Series (9 in number) are copies of cash/credit invoice issued by classic
aluminum center and others to Ansar.
Ext. B7: Copy of F.I.R 408/2018 dated 25/05/2018 of Perinthalmann Police station.
Ext. C1: Adv. Commissioner Report
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
VPH Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
