Date of filing:21.4.2014
Date of Disposal:12.6.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JUNE, 2014.
C.C.No.101 OF 2014.
Between :
Ithapu Subrahmanyeswara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, 50 years, Advocate, 23-23-46A, Sivarao Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada – 520 011.
….. Complainant.
And
B.Mohan, S/o Not Known, Hindu, 50 years, Proprietor, Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Furniture & Building Works, D.No.23-22-85, Baburao Meda Centre, Sivalayam Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada – 520 011.
…..Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 4.6.2014 in the presence of Sri K.Jogeswara Rao, Counsel for complainant and opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant approached the opposite party for get in preparation of cupboard frames in his house for a valid consideration of Rs.45,000/- including material and preparation charges and paid advance of Rs.20,000/- on 31.3.2013. The opposite party agreed to complete the work with quality material. Believing the same the complainant also paid the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- on various dates to the end of April, 2013. Though the opposite party received the total amount he failed to complete the work as he promised and the work partially made by him also is not upto the quality. The complainant observed that the opposite party used inferior quality ply wood resulting in gluing layers are releasing the gum automatically. Further the opposite party did not complete the work inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant either in person, by making phone calls or issuing letters, which caused untold mental agony and loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum, to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.45,750/- paid by the complainant by various dates, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deprivation of services and costs.
2. Notice was served to opposite party, opposite party remained absent.
3. The complainant gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
towards the complainant in not completing the work as promised by him even
though he received agreed amount.
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the documents, complainant says that he approached for getting preparation of cupboard frames to his house for a valid consideration of Rs.45,000/- including material and preparation charges and he paid advance of Rs.20,000/- on 31.3.2013 and he also paid the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- on various dates i.e., 6.4.2013 Rs.10,000/-, on 15.4.2013 Rs.5,000/-, on 19.4.2013 Rs.3,000/-, on 27,4,2013 Rs.5,000/-, on 30.4.2013 Rs.2,000/- and on 30.4.2013 Rs.750/-, under Ex.A.1. Though the opposite party received the total amount he failed to complete the work as he promised. The opposite party did not complete the work inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant either in person and by making phone calls. Ex.A.2 is phone calls made to the opposite party on 12.4.2013, 15.4.2013, 15.4.2013, 15.4.2013, 26.4.2013, 26.4.2013, 26.4.2013, 27.4.2013, 27.4.2013, 29.4.2013, 29.4.2013, 29.4.2013, 30.4.2013, 1.5.2013, 1.5.2013,1.5.2013, 3.5.2013, 3.5.2013, 16.5.2013, 27.5.2013, 3.6.2013, 3.6.2013, 3.6.2013, 5.6.2013, 7.6.2013, 27.6.2013 and by issuing letters under Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.10 by the complainant, but they are returned unserved and there is no response from the opposite party. Ex.A.3 is C.D. in respect of phone No. of opposite party i.e., 9849404357 and phone calls for period from 1.3.2013 to 31.8.2013. We came to know that there is no response from the opposite party for the phone calls made by the complainant and for notices issued by the complainant. Therefore it seems that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant in not performing his work as promised to the complainant even though he received advance Rs.20,000/-. The complainant says that he paid agreed amount of Rs.45,750/-. But there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant paid agreed amount Rs.45,750/- in advance. Mere issuance of legal notice is not sufficient to say that he paid full agreed amount. Without completing the work no one can pay full amount. Taking into consideration of Rs.20,000/- paid by the complainant as advance, as the opposite party did not complete the work and no response from him, it seems clear deficiency in service on his part towards the complainant. Hence the opposite party has to refund the advance amount to the complainant and he is also liable to pay compensation for incomplete of work. Thus the complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite party.
POINT No.3:-
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) paid by the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand rupees only) towards compensation for not completing the work and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) to the complainant on collection of the material he used from the complainant. Time for compliance one month. If the opposite party fails to pay the awarded amount within due date the awarded amount carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the realization. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12th day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 I.Subrahmanyeswara Rao None
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Amounts showing the advance and other payments paid by
the complainant on the reverse of the Visiting card of the
opposite party
Ex.A.2 . . Call details from 1.3.2013 to 31.8.2013.
Ex.A.3 03.10.2013 Letter from BSNL to the complainant along with unserved cover.
Ex.A.4 08.07.2013 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.5 . . Unserved cover.
Ex.A.6 29.07.2013 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.7 . . Unserved cover.
Ex.A.8 03.09.2013 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.9 12.08.2013 Letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.10 . . Unserved cover.
For the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
