We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.1 is a proprietorship concern of o.p. no.2. In the month of October, 2011 the complainant went to the shop of o.p. no.2 and expressed his desire to have a modular kitchen installed in his house.

            We find from the record that after a detailed discussion o.p. no.2 quoted to the complainant a sum of Rs.75,000/- to complete the task of installation of the modular kitchen. However, such sum was beyond the complainant’s budget and therefore the complainant told the o.p. no.2 clearly that the complainant’s budget cannot exceed more than Rs.45,000/- and that the complainant shall not be able to afford the price so quoted.

            And after discussing with her husband the o.p. no.2 said she will be able to provide to the complainant a modular kitchen within that budget and with all the requirements the complainant was looking for. Therefore when asked to give an advance by o.p. no.2 the complainant in good faith gave the o.p. no.2 an advance of Rs.1000/- on 30.10.11 itself and on 3.11.11 gave a further sum of Rs.10,000/- and on 7.11.11 gave a further sum of Rs.14,000/-, the sum total being Rs.25,000/- as an advance money and told the o.p. no.2 on 30.11.11 itself that the complainant would want the kitchen to be complete by 11.12.11 to which the complainant was told by o.p. no.2 that she would deliver and complete the kitchen by the first week of December, 2011.

            It is seen from the record that complainant was even told that installation will not take anything more than two days and that any weekend is good enough to finish the installation of the modular kitchen.

            It is also seen that complainant wanted the modular kitchen to be complete within 11.12.11 was that it was the complainant’s mother’s birthday on 12.12.11 and it was a gift to her. Also on 12.12.11 an in-house get together was called for wherein the complainant had invited 50 odd guests and preparation of food was to be made in that kitchen and which was well within the knowledge of the o.p. no.2, but still no step was taken by o.p. no.2 to complete the process of installation within the time so stipulated.

            It transpires from the record that on 22.12.11 the task to install the modular kitchen commenced after several request from the complainant’s end and also from the complainant’s wife. It was in the evening at about 6 O’clock the Manager of o.p. no.1 being Raju Malakar brought along with him a worker to install. However, the worker said all measurements taken were wrong and that the goods delivered needs to be taken to the factory to make good of the wrong measurements so taken. As such, nothing happened on 22.12.11 and the kitchen was left in a mess and in an unworkable condition. It is once again relevant to mention herein is that all the things of the kitchen had to b e kept elsewhere from 8.12.11 so to ease out the process of installation and therefore the kitchen was left in a unworkable condition and as such it was left in such a condition till 8.1.12 when the work of installation got complete that is for a period of one month.

            On perusal of the record we find that o.p. no.2 at that juncture said modular kitchen is a complex thing and that is installation can take even more than 60 days. O.p. no.2 even went further by saying she was not willing to take up the task as she is not having much of profit and that Rs.45,000/- is nothing so far as a modular kitchen is concerned and with such “meager sum” the o.p. no.2 does not have the inclination nor the time to pour to give a good finish and give good quality and standard of product. However, at the time of taking the advance the o.p. no.2 had with assertion said that two months are sufficient to give a good finish to install a modular kitchen and that the sum of money so offered from the complainant’s end was good enough to make a good quality modular kitchen. Finally on 8.1.12 the installation of the kitchen was complete with so many shortcomings. The rod of the cups and saucer accessory give which was bought at an additional price of Rs.2300/- has already bent and that was even bought from a local shop.

            Further case of the complainant is that after repeated calls and request being made to make good of the short comings in the work delivered for the installation of the modular kitchen, on 12.2.12 in the afternoon Raju Malakar, the Manager of o.p. no.1 along with a worker came to the complainant’s house and repaired the plate basket installation. However, nothing else was repaired by them and as such the modular kitchen so installed and delivered is not the one as promised.

            In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps.  O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.47,300/- (Rupees forty seven thousand three hundred) only to the complainant in the context of the facts and circumstances disclosed above and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. The articles of modular kitchen what had been supplied by the o.p.2 be returned to the o.p.2 by the complainant if lying with the complainant within 15 days after compliance of the order.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.