Delhi

East Delhi

CC/123/2017

E.BI2.COM - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARCHITECTS DWG. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2019

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. 123/17

 

M/s. e-BIZ.com Pvt. Ltd.

Registered at G-604,

Pawittra Apartments

Vasundhara Enclave

Delhi – 110 096                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s.Architects.dwg

A partnership firm through its partners

Mr. Mohit Kumar and Mr. Yogesh Kumar

Advant Building, Tower-B

Level-7, Office No. 703, Plot No. 7

Express Way, Sector – 142

Noida – 201 301                                                            …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.03.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 04.12.2019

Judgement Passed on: 06.12.2019

 

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 M/s. e-BIZ.com Pvt. Ltd. against M/s. Architects.dwg (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that Mr. Hitik Malhan (an employee at the complainant), son of the Managing Director of complainant company      M/s. e-BIZ.com Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Company Act, 1956, was looking for Architects and Contractors for carrying out renovation and interior work for the family resident B-147, Sector-50, Noida.  He searched and found out about the respondents from the service (Just Dial).  Mr. Mohit Kumar partner of respondent, contacted the son of the Managing Director of complainant company and forwarded their firm profile alongwith the link to their website and page on face book.  They, through their mail dated 01.04.2013 proposed a meeting in their office and it was stated that Mr. Yogesh Kumar, the other partner would be the Architect of the proposed project be present.  The meeting was held and on their representation, the respondents believing them to be true. 

The Managing Director of the complainant initially contemplated getting his flat B-147, first floor, Sector-50, Noida renovated, however, the Managing Director decided to get renovated flat at G-604, Pavittra Apartments, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi, which was owned by the complainant as complainant’s Managing Director’s son was to get married in November, 2013.  When this work was executed, another work on plot owned by complainant’s Managing Director’s son at D-1, Sector-63, Noida, UP was also awarded.

           It has further been stated that respondents entered into a contract with the complainant for the work at G-604, Pavittra Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi on 11.04.2013.  The total cost of the project was agreed at Rs. 19,60,693/-.  The work which was to be carried out included complete furniture and fixtures of the flat, woodwork, modular kitchen including chimney and HOB, demolition of existing structure, civil and plumbing work, complete electrical work with material, fabrication of windows, SS door for the entrance, complete POP work, AC wiring, gas piping and paint of entire flat.   

The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as advance on 02.04.2013 and 06.04.2013 respectively.  A liquidated damage clause was agreed that in case the work was delayed beyond the agreed period, + the grace period i.e. 1108.2013 plus 25 days, damages of Rs. 25,000/- per week will be levied as time was of the essence of the contract.  Despite having received the money, the respondent delayed the completion of the work and also the work carried out was sub-standard and shoddy.  The respondents did not complete the work for the flat no. G-604, Pavittra Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi before 11.08.2013 which was to be completed before the marriage of the son of the Managing Director of complainant company even the work done was of poor quality at B-147, Sector-50, Noida.

Upon examination of the work carried out by the respondents at all the three sites in January 2014, the Managing Director of the complainant company was utter shocked and surprised to found the poor quality of work.  The civil renovation at G-604, Pavittra Apartment Vasundhara Enclave, was not only delayed, but it was mostly incomplete and of sub-standard.  The complainant had a meeting with the respondents on 24.01.2014 in the presence of three independent persons in which it was acknowledged by them that there was deficiency in service in respect of the work. 

In another meeting on 20.02.2014, they also admitted that the work carried out at G-604, Pavittra Apartment, Vasundhara Enclave, was defective and incomplete.  They also accepted this in the meeting held on 24.01.2014.  They did not rectify the defects which were pointed out by the complainant in all the three sites.  Thus, it has been stated that the respondents were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant have prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair and restrictive trade practices and breach of promise.

3.        Mr. Mohit Kumar, partner, have appeared on behalf of OP, but did not file the WS and stopped appearing.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

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

5.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The first and foremost point which have arisen during the course of arguments has been as to whether the complainant was a ‘Consumer’ or not as the complaint was filed by the company registered under the Company Act, 1956.  The argument which has been advanced on behalf of complainant has been that the work which was carried out by the respondents was for the personal residence of Managing Director.

           To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, a look has to be made to Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The relevant portion of Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(m)  are extracted hereunder:-

Section 2(1)(d) “consumer means any person who, -

1. -
2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

 

Section 2(1)(m) “person” includes –

1. A firm whether registered or not;
2. A Hindu undivided family;
3. A co-operative society;
4. Every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not;

          

           From the bare reading of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the opening word uses the word “Consumer means any person, who hires or avails of any services for a consideration”.  Further, Section 2(1)(m) defines the person which includes “a firm registered or not, a Hindu undivided family, a co-operative society and every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not”.  However, the definition of person excludes the company registered under the Indian Companies Act. 

           If para 1 of the complaint is looked into, it starts with the word “The complainant is a company duly registered under Companies Act, 1956 of India”.  When the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act, it does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  That being so, the complainant M/s. e-BIZ.com Pvt. Ltd., which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be said to be a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The argument which has been advanced on behalf of complainant that the renovation of work was to be carried out at the personal residence of the complainant does not make any difference when the complaint has been filed by a company.

           In view of the above, we are of the opinion that complainant          M/s. e-BIZ.com Pvt. Ltd. which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, the complaint fails and is dismissed with cost of     Rs. 5,000/- which be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority of East District, Karkardooma Courts. 

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

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                           President