Date of filing: 14.09.2020

Judgment Date: 02.11.2022

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

            This petition of   complaint is filed under section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 by Sri Shyamal Kumar Goswami,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (referred as O.P hereinafter) namely Chirag Group of Company , represented by its Proprietor Kaushik Mandal. 

            The case of the Complainant, in short, is that the O.P is engaged with the business of supply , installation and construction of elevator. So, complainant approached the O.P for installation of elevator of standard quality with structure together with other specification at his residence. O.P issued a quotation dated 3.2.2020. An agreement was also entered into between the parties and signed on 4.2.2020. The total price for the installation of the elevator was Rs. 8,50,000/- and in terms of the said agreement and the quotation complainant paid Rs. 1,70,000/- i.e 20% advance through a cheque dated 4.2.2020 to the O.P. The work was to be completed within 3-4 ,months from the date of agreement . But the same has not been completed. The agent of the O.P demolished the vital portion of the northern side of the complainant’s residence in order to facilitate the smooth passage for the elevator to be installed and while doing so, those workers have damaged the conjoined portion of the wall and left open which is unsafe and risky for the complainant. The complainant and his wife are senior citizen and since physically unable to avail the stair case, the agreement was entered into for installation of elevator to their residence. But the work is not completed inspite of sending the letter and the demand notice by the complainant. So, the present complaint has been filed ,praying for directing the O.P to refund sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- along with interest @18% p.a, to pay Rs. 10 Lac for causing damages to the main building, to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

            On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice, no step was taken by the O.P and thus the case was directed to be proceeded exparte.

            So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            In order to substantiate his claim that O.P agreed to install the elevator and accordingly issued a quotation and subsequently an agreement was entered into ,  complainant has filed the said quotation and also the copy of the agreement.

            It appears from the said quotation that as per terms of payment complainant was required to pay 20% advance along with confirmed order. The complainant has filed the document showing payment of such sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-. It appears further from the said quotation specially the terms of payment that the payment was to be made in 6 stages and the next 20% was to be paid against material readiness.

            Accordingly to the complainant, barring digging or demolishing the complainant’s residence in the northern side in order to facilitate the smooth passage for the elevator, no further work has been carried out towards the installation or the construction. It is the specific claim of the complainant that by demolishing the said vital portion, those authorized agent of the O.P has damaged the portion of his wall. Before this Commission there is absolutely no contrary material to counter the claim of the complainant or  any document that the complainant was informed by the O.P about the readiness of the material. Some letters have been filed which is sent by the complainant to the O.P, asking him to resume the work of installation of the lift as per agreement dated 4.2.2020. In response to the said letter a reply has been sent by the O.P through e-mail dated 10^th September, 2020 asking the complainant to pay the next stage of the payment. The said letter further indicates that they had to change the structural work for which O.P needed more money . But it is strange that agreement was entered into as well as the quotation was sent after inspection of the site. So, if he wanted to change the structural work, he had to do the same within the terms and conditions of the agreement as already entered into between the parties. But it is apparent that no intimation was sent when the complainant sent a letter dated 10^th September, 2020 after receipt of the said mail from the O.P asking him to complete the work. So, on consideration of the documents filed by the complainant, since the O.P left the work only after digging the said place which has made the building unsafe for the occupant therein, complainant is not only entitled to the refund of the sum paid by him but also compensation in the form of interest.

Hence,

            ORDERED

CC no. 188 of 2020 is allowed exparte.

The O.P is hereby directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- paid by the complainant along with interest on the said sum @12% p.a from the date of payment to till this date within 2 months in default the sum shall carry further interest @12% till its realization.

The O.P is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 2 months.