Delhi

East Delhi

CC/703/2014

SHASHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FOOTSTEPANDORS - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         703 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  05/08/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                  26/07/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                           27/07/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. Shashi Kohli, adult   

w/o-Sh Rakesh Kohli

R/o – G 198, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092 …………………………...Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Foot Step

Through - Manager/ Directors  

2-Mr Vikas Singh

3-Preeti Sharma

Office at - Plot no. - 40, First Floor,

Patpargunj Industrial Area, Delhi 110092……….…………………….Opponents

 

 

Quorum                                             Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                            Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant wanted her house renovated through interior designer for the marriage of her child so through OP2 and 3 got address of OP1. OP 1 was introduced as dealing in all such types of work as modular railings, staircase and main gates of good quality. Being satisfied by the assurances given, quotation was accepted for a sum of Rs 82,000/- as final amount and paid advance amount Rs 57,400/-as entire work would get completed in 45 days. So, complainant paid the agreed amount as advance money to OP1. But after some time, OPs started delaying the work for one reason or other and even after repeated inquiry from the complainant; none of the OPs were answering her as marked Ex CW1/1 with certain lay out structure plan to be done as Ex CW1/2 to 5.

It was stated that maximum work was left incomplete by OP1 and even laborers were not doing work properly as per photographs annexed here Ex CW1/6 to 11. Seeing the quality of poor work, she complained to OP2 and 3 and to OP1 also, but none of the OPs were giving her satisfactory answers. Realizing cheating and fraud done to her demanded refund of her advanced. After calling number of times and even personal visits by complainant and her huwsband, OP1 stated that they would refund the amount after deducting a sum of Rs 20,000/-as work had been done by them.

It had been stated that OPs had defaced her staircases and maximum cement work by removing old tiles, but did not start the new work, so sent legal notice on 06/06/2014 for refunding the amount paid and damages done over 1 lakh as Ex CW1/12. But no reply was received, thus filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs 57400/- as advance amount paid with compensation of damages done over one lakh and Rs one lakh for loss of her reputation.

 

OP submitted written statement and denied all the facts and allegations of complainant. It was stated that neither complainant was a genuine consumer nor this case comes under the preview of The Consumer Protection Act, so complaint may be dismissed. It was also stated that complainant did not cooperate according to their quotation and terms and conditions of the agreement, hence OPs were not at any fault.

Complainant submitted her rejoinder with evidence on affidavit of herself and affirmed on oath that her all facts and contentions of complaint were correct and true. It was also stated that complainant had engaged new interior designer under the name as “Indesign Living” who gave an estimate to complete her work for a sum of Rs 3,82335/-marked as Ex CW1/13.

OPs did not submit their evidence on affidavit even up to the stage of arguments.  

 Arguments were heard from the complainant as OP did not appear to argue so order was reserved. 

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was evident that complainant had paid the amount and was received by OP as per the agreement between the OP and complainant. OP did not filed their evidence on affidavit.

 

As OP had submitted in their written statement that this was not a genuine complaint and so consumer, so we have gone in detail to see the definition of consumer and complaint in reference to deficiency in services by OP under The C. P Act, which reads as -

“Consumer”-Under Section 2(1)(d)-

i)- any person who buys goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised not for resale or for any commercial purposes.   

ii)-(hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised but not any commercial purposes.

Here in this case, complainant has hired the services of OPs after paying the consideration amount thus complainant was a genuine consumer.    

“deficiency” means Under Section 2(1)(g)-

“means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

Here in this case, the complainant had taken services of OPs for her house repairing and remodeling for which she had paid consideration, but OPs did not perform assigned work and also not refunded the amounts which had been received, so the services were totally deficient.

Thus it is clear that OPs had no experience of their work and were dealing in unfair trade practice also.                   

 

We are of the opinion that complainant has succeeded in her case by proving deficiency in services of OPs, so we allow this complaint and pass the order as -

 

 

 

1. OP shall refund a sum of Rs 57,400/- with 9% interest through demand draft from the date of filing of this complaint within 30 days from receiving of this order.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 25,000/- for physical and mental harassment to the complainant along with Rs 5000/- as litigation charges.
3. If awarded amount is not complied within stipulated time, the complainant shall be entitled to recover entire amount with same interest till realized.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         

                                                

                                            Shri Sukhdev Singh  President