Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/894/2022

SURINDER PAL SINGH SACHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

EDEN GARDEN INTERIOR DECORATE - Opp.Party(s)

AMAR VIVEK AGGARWAL

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/894/2022
Date of Institution	:	29/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	11/07/2024

 

 

Surinder Pal Singh Sachar, S/o Ajit Singh Sachar, aged about 58 years, R/o House No.106, Sector 55, Palsora, Chandigarh 160055.

 

Complainant

 

Versus

 

Eden Garden Interior Decorate through its Proprietor Deepak Goyal S/o Dharmvir Goyal, R/o House No.4924, Gali No.22/6, Pratap Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab-151005.

Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ghanshyam, Advocate proxy for Sh.Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sorabh Goyal, alongwith Sh.Kulwinder Singh Sran, Advocates for OP(s).

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the Complainant purchased Flat No.701, Falcon View, Sector 66-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and required the services of a renovation contractor who could renovate the entire Flat and also furnish the flat with all the amenities inclusive of the material and labour. The complainant approached the OP for the construction work of his newly bought house in Mohali regarding which Complainant and OP had a meeting at complainant premise at Chandigarh. The Complainant showed him the Flat which had to be constructed where the OP briefed him about all the expenditures which would approximately cost around Rs.45,60,000/-. The respondent completely assured the Complainant that premium services for undertaking the renovation will be rendered and the work will be completed as soon as possible and the house will be made ready to move in no time. The complainant had advanced huge money by way of banking transactions like google pay and cheque etc. to the OP total amount of Rs.45,60,000/- Annexure C-1 (colly). However, eventually, the OP started dilly-dallying the matter on one pretext or other. On 24.12.2001 the OP stopped the construction work and stopped even responding to the calls of the complainant. The complainant tried every possible way to reach out to the OP but failed. Eventually the OP called and acknowledged that the sum of Rs.13,60,000/- had already been used in the construction work and the remaining of Rs.32 Lakhs will be returned to the complainant through cheque as he had used the share of the amount given to him for his personal use and every assurance given by him to complainant was all false and now OP did not possess any labour or means to complete the pending work leaving the complainant in the midst of nowhere. It is significant to state here that the construction work undertaken by the OP was baloney; therefore complainant had to get all the construction work done again and bear that expenditure as well. The OP issued 2 cheques of Rs.16 lakhs each on 3.1.2022 and 12.1.2022 respectively against his liability to the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque in the bank on 5.3.2022 to his utter shock the cheque was dishonored, the bank memo stated reason as “Funds Insufficient”. The Complainant therein had come across several other similar scenarios wherein the OP is in regular practice of taking money from the clients and duping them by running away with money and in lieu of same several civil and criminal complaints are pending in various judicial court of Tricity (Annexure C-7). Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainants has filed the instant complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP had provided all the complete services of the renovation of the flat as per verbal conditions to the complainant including furniture, refrigerator and LED television etc. It is also denied that the complainant deposited any amount to the bank account of the OP through G-Pay. It is further stated that the sub para No.5 of the complaint is totally wrong and denied that the OP issued 2 cheques bearing No.012059 and 12058 on 3.1.2022 and 12.1.2022 respectively. It is denied that the OP never cheated nor defraud with the complainant. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of charging Rs.32,00,000/- towards renovation work of his flat, the OP has not carried the work satisfactorily and when the amount has been refunded by cheques, the same were dishonored.
7.     On perusal of documents, it is observed that the complainant have not adduced any written agreement executed with OP, containing the details of amount payable/paid details specifications of material or scope of work to be carried out. The complainant has also not adduced any evidence with regard to the assessment of work done and work pending from a technical expert.
8.     We are of the view as there was no written contract or no document promising services against payment of consideration, hence, the issue could be adjudicated by the appropriate Civil Court. The procedure under Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature. In this complaint there are several issues and allegations of civil and criminal in nature which arises in this matter like work quantities, payments, dishonoring cheques etc.  
9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned in the complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction/ appropriate Forum. 
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
11/07/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member