FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE COMPLAINANT:
The instant case has been filed by the present complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant runs a business under the name and style of TUFAN INDUSTRIES for her livelihood within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission. The O.P invited tender for structural fabrication and commissioning for false ceiling and the complainant filled the quotation and work order was issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant completed the work within the stipulated period and submitted the bill of Rs. 1,98,606.45/only including GST to the O.P for payment towards the work. On several occasions the complainant asked the O.P for release of the payment but the O.P did not pay the amount though the complainant requested for several times and sent many mails to the O.P. The complainant has already paid the GST before the authority and has paid the wages of the labour and cost of materials. Without getting the payment from the O.P the complainant sustained huge financial loss and could not extend her business but the said business is her only livelihood.
The complainant made several request to the O.P to release the payment but the O.P paid no heed to that, nor they have released the said money in favour of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering mental agony and is also suffered financial loss.
The complainant prays for direction upon the O.P to pay Rs. 1,98,606.45/ alongwith interest to the tune of 22% p.a and Rs. 10,00,000/ as compensation for suffering mental agony and anxiety as well as financial loss, cost of case and any other reliefs.
DEFENCE CASE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
The O.P submitted the written version and denied all allegations against him. The specific case of the O.P is that, the O.P is a consumer against the complainant as the complainant is the service provider to the O.P as per terms and conditions of the work order, but the complainant has not performed her work properly for which this O.P suffered huge loss and damage.
The O. P issued work order to the complainant to construct ceiling under the shed of the O.P factory but after getting the work order though the complainant started working but due to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant the said work was not completed within the specified time and her working progress and quality was degraded for which O.P suffered huge loss. More so, without giving proper service the complainant demanded money, which was beyond the agreement. In spite of repeated request of the O.P to complete the work complainant did not pay any heed but refused to do the work .
According to this O.P , he is a consumer of the complainant and there is another joinder as a necessary party under which the contract, tender, work order were performed.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.
The O.P. has filed the written version only.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of the complainant shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant side has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the complainant.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
specific case of the complainant is that, on receipt of work order from GLOBAL AQUA PVT LTD the sole OP, her industries made completion of the work as per work order vide quotation no. TI/GAPLHOW/Mail-002/2016-17 and in support of her claim a photocopy of work order along with some bills and photo copies of income tax certificate as well as certificate of enlistment for the year 2016-17 of license dept. of Howrah Municipal Corporation have been filed and in support thereof she has submitted documents referred to herein above amounting to Rs. 1,98,606.45/ including GST.In view of above discussion there cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner cannot but be the consumer on the basis of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.hence this issue is disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
On scrutiny of the case record it appears that though the sole OP appears to have filed written version on 4/4/19 has not submitted any evidence and BNA and as such the case record is taken up as ex parte for disposal.
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
The specific case of the complainant is that as per work order dated 11.3.2017 she has completed the work within the scheduled time mentioned there in and has also submitted four photo copies of bills and even being asked for payment of the said job the OP has not paid the aforesaid amount. In support of her claim the petitioner has submitted photocopies of six letters dated 16/1/17, 15/1/18, 31/1/18, 5/2/18, 8/2/18 and 19/2/18. The OP has admitted about issuance of work order to the complainant on different aspects( reference: work order) and has also admitted that the complainant after getting work order from the OP, started work but due to deficiency of service on the part of the complainant there was delay to finish the said work and also the complaint is that the work was not finished within time and in para 25 of the written version the OP has claimed degraded service of the complainant ‘ which was beyond the agreement, for which the demand of money of the complainant could not be entertained.’
Though requested repeatedly to finish the work properly and diligently, the complainant did not pay any heed to it for which ‘ the OP faced various difficulties and suffered huge monetary losses.’
Much of the allegations referred to above with regard to completion of the work by the complainant the OP has not dared to submit even a solitary paper of documents to support such allegations .
In view of above circumstances this commission finds reason to support the claims of the petitioner and as such both the issues are disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 313 of 2018 be and the same is decreed ex parte in favour of the complainant.
The complainant do get her claim of Rs. 1,98,606.45/ along with 9% interest from the date of initiation of the case from the OP within 45 days from date and the petitioner do further get an amount of Rs. 10000/ for mental agony and Rs. 5000/ towards litigation cost from the OP within 45 days from date failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Member
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
