Dt. of filing – 15/03/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 09/10/2020
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complaint in filed U/S 12 of the cp Act 1996 by Dr. BRATATI NIYOGI Daughter of Late Roma Prasad Niyogi 13 Suren Tagore Road, P.S. Gariahat Kolkata 700019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties against Colour Concepts of 54/1/1 Hazra Road P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata 700019 Represented by its Sales Associate Mr. RAJU BISWAS (op no. 1), Colour Concepts of 54/1/1 Hazra Road P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata 700019 Represented by its Area Sales Manager (South) Mr. Mathur (op no. 2) & The Director/Head of the office, Asian Paints Ltd. Having its head office at 6A Shantinagar Santacruz (E) Mumbai – 400055 Represented by its director (op no. 3).
Facts in Brief
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being desiring to paint her home contacted Asian paints and the said company in reply sent their representative namely Raju Biswas to the residence of the complainant for physical inspection of the site and to submit quotation regarding the of work and expenditure relating to the work. The complainant has stated that as per said quotation she paid Rs. 87500/- by two cheques bearing Nos 617805 & 617806 amounting Rs. 60000/- & Rs. 27500/- respectively on 23.6.2014 and after receiving entire amount the ops started their work in July 2017 but surprising the ops reduced their work force after five days and completely stopped their work within another five days keeping their tools on the work site causing inconvention to the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that she has communicated the entire episode to the ops through the toll free number, official e-mail and letter but the problem has not been solved and being aggrieved the complainant by filling the instant petition has prayed for direction upon the ops to refund Rs. 87500/- along with interest, to pay Rs. 60000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
The op No 3 contested the case by filling written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that in the instant case M/S Colour concept (OP No. 1 herein) is the service provider on behalf of the Asian paints and said service providers provides quality service to the customer. The op No. 3 has stated that their workers started their work on July 2017 cleaning of the surface area which is preparatory work for putting paint on the wall and requested the complainant to choose the shade of the colour but the complainant did not co-operate with them which was the cause of delay for in progress of work and furthermore, the complainant on several occasion put hindrance before the workers asking them to continue their work as per her convenient time which alternately lead to non completion of work. It is further stated by the OP No 3 that four painters were engaged to carry out first phase of work taking two rooms and a balcony at one go and the workers cleaned up the surface and put 2nd coat of primer on the wall of the said rooms of balcony. The OP No 3 has stated that they tried very hard to get an appointment with the complainant but they had been denied each and every time. Regarding complaint lodged by the complainant with APEHS (Asian Paints Easy Here Solution) the op no 3 stated that the complaint was closed due to non availability of the complainant and according prayed for dismissal of the case against the op no 3.
The complainant has annexed measurement cum quotation, painting estimate and email correspondence addresses of dt. 26.07.2017, 16.08.2017 & 23.10.2017 alongwith petition of complaint.
No written version was filed on behalf Op no 1 & 2.
The complainant has filed affidavit in chief.
No questionnaire as well as evidence was filed on behalf of op no 3.
On the prayer of the complainant an Engineer Commissioner was engaged to inspect the work and to file report. Engineer Commissioner submitted report where from it appear from the said report that the Commission work was done in presence of all parties. M/s. Colour Concept was also present at that point of time though they did not file any written version or evidence. However, their presence during commission work suggests that they were very much aware about the complaint file against them.
Brief Notes of argument is filed on behalf of the complainant.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for
Decision with reasons
Point No. (i) & (ii) - Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
The complainant has claimed that she engaged the ops to paint her residence and as per quotation, submitted by the ops after physical verification of her residence she paid Rs. 87500/- to the ops.
The complainant has further claimed that the workers of the OPs performed painting work only for five / six days and without intimating her workers left the job keeping the same unfinished and heavily damaging some portion of her residence.
On perusal of petition of complaint and written version of No. 3 it appears that on receiving request from the end of the complainant one Raju Biswas, Sales Associates of M/S Colour Concept went to the residence of the complainant and handed over measurement –cum- quotation on 16.6.2017. Copy of said document has also been filed by the complainant & where from it appears from said document that measurement of ceiling area, wall area, doors, windows and repairing area are 651 Sq. Ft., 1550 Sq. Ft., 1115 Sq. Ft. & 100 Sq. Ft. respectively.
On perusal of report filed by Engineer Commissioner it appears that there are huge differences between the quoted area and executed area. As per Commissioner’s report difference between quoted area and executed area of ceiling, wall, doors and repairing areas are 309.68 Sq. Ft., 989.24 Sq. Ft., 772.83 Sq. Ft. & 96 Sq. Ft. respectively.
It is therefore evident that though the complainant paid entire consideration amount in advance but the ops did not provide the service as per terms agreed between the parties. The op no 3 also admitted that 1st phase of work was started only. The OP no. 3 in his defence has stated that on several occasion ops took initiate to fix an appointment with the complainant but the complainant refused to meet the ops. Moreover, the complaint filed by the complainant to APEHS (Asian Paints Easy Home Solution) has been closed due to in availability of the complainant. However, in support of such averment no documents have been filed by the ops. On the other hand it suggests that the complainant knocked their door for their initiative to solve the problem. The complainant also claimed that the workers of the op caused heavy damage. However, it appears from site health card issued on 23.6.2017 by the op that “Lime work done in all over surfaces, Avg Adhesion found on previous painting. Only the repairing areas has some moisture of 40-50%”.
It also appears from Eng. Commissioner report that “Dampness to some areas on ceiling wall are visible”. No works are done to Bath, Balcony-2 Which suggest that dampness / moisture was there before the work was started. So the said averment has not been taken into consideration.
It is evident from the above mentioned discussion that the ops failed to provide promised service and therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief.
It is also admitted that some work was done which is not disputed also and so entire refund of Rs. 87,500 cannot be allow as prayed for.
Under such state of affairs we are of opinion that if a direction is given to the ops to refund Rs. 60,000/- Justice will be served.
Regarding compensation we are of opinion that the complainant had to face harassment and therefore she is entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation.
The ops compelled the complainant to file the instant case so they have to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-
Point No. (i) & (ii) are decided accordingly
HENCE,
ORDERED
That CC/133/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against OP No. 3 and ex-parte against OP Nos. 1 & 2.
The OPs are directed to refund Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant within two months.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation & Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation within the aforesaid period. In default, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realisation.
