District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.453/2021.

 Date of Institution:14.09.2021.

Date of Order: 14.09.2022.

Ajay Singh, House No. 122, Sector-46, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                                    …….Complainant……..

                                                            Versus

Himanshu Negi Architects, Ist floor, Sai complex, Raipur Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

                                                                                    …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:                  Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                Sh.  Keshav Singh,  counsel for the complainant.

                                    Ms.Pooja Arora, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                                    The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party for the architectural design of his site in Uttarakhand to which opposite party agreed.  As per the agreement dated 19-03-2021 sent by the opposite party to my client all terms and conditions were in favor of opposite party which was drafted with the malafide intention to cause unnecessary delay of work. As per the agreement Rs 25000/- was paid to Mr Himanshu Negi in his personal account mentioned in the agreement through IMPS on 18-03 2021 as per the Terms of the contract.  Mr Himanshu-undertook to provide his services for architectural design and site supervision as per his agreement which he failed to deliver as per the terms of contract. The opposite party kept on denying and ignoring complainant and neither responded to mails or phone calls of the complainant. As per the verbal contract between the complainant and Mr. Himanshu it was decided that he would provide architectural site plan within 3 months but even after lapse of 6 months he failed to deliver his service due to which the project suffered and its cost increased.  The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                     pay  Rs 25000/- as a refund for non fulfillment of services and termination of contract

 b)                    pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                      Any other order which the Hon'ble commission thinks fit under such circumstances.

2.                     Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the professional relation between the parties was initiated after the complainant approached the respondent for the architectural planning, site designing and supervision services. In pursuit of which the respondent mailed a quotation regarding the services to be offered, scope of work and further fee schedule as per the norms of his company. The said quoted amount was not agreed by the complainant and therefore he counter-offered to limit the services for amount around Rs. 2,00,000/- only. After various telephonic conversations and negotiations thereof, it was settled between the parties mutually that the scope of work would be limited to the aspect of the amount of Rs. 2,30,000 only. As mutually settled Rs. 25,000/- was paid as an advance for the services rendered. And therefore, the respondent and his team initiated the work regarding the site work. For efficient fulfillment of the services being rendered, there was a requirement of an on-site visit and thereof the respondent did the same, travelling around 300 km. It was mutually decided between the parties that Rs. 5000/- per visit would be charged for on-site visit. The same was still pending to be paid by the complainant. After the execution of the mutual settlement and initiation of work from respondent's side, the situation of COVID pandemic in the country worsened and in lieu of the same complete lockdown was announced in the country. This resulted in temporary halt of services related to execution but still the architectural design related to preliminary concept, 2D design, site layouts in 2D and 3D were ongoing. There was no intentional ignorance from the respondent side. There were quite instances that the respondent tried to respond, irrespective of the fact that the respondent and his mother were severely suffered by Covid second wave. The respondent tried to contact the complainant regarding further execution of the agreed norms but there were instances where the complainant kept on ignoring and did not respond to the calls of the respondent.  Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                     The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                     In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Himanshu Negi Architects with the prayer to: a)  pay  Rs 25000/- as a refund for non fulfillment of services and termination of contract.  b) pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other order which the Hon'ble commission thinks fit under such circumstances.

                        To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Ajay Singh, Ex.C-1 – quotation of architecture services, Ex.C-2 – whatsapp message,, Ex.C-3 -  payment  transfer in the account of  Himanshu bearing No. 48420200000147 of Rs.25,000/-.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.RW1/A  - affidavit of Shri Himanshu Negi S/o late Shri Prem Singh, R/o D-3, Vikaspuram, Raipur Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, Ex.R-1 – Reply to legal demand notice, Ex.R-2 -  email dated 27.02.2011, Ex.R-3 – quotation of architecture services for resort at Uttarkashi,, Ex.R-4 – work scope and drawing list as per the requirement of the project,, Ex.R-5 -  invoice No. L53-20/21 dated 20.06.2021, Ex.R-6 – whatsapp message, Ex.R-7 – map, Ex.R-7(1) to R-7(iv) – map,, Ex.R-8 – Brief & References- Site, Ex.R-8(1) – brief,, Ex.R-8(ii)  to R-8(vii) – photographs, Ex.R-9  to R-9(iii_ –Ground Floor Plan,  Ex.R-10 – photograph, Ex.R-11 – Economical cottage plan, Ex.R-12 – Development of site,, Ex.R-13 – Ground Floor Plan, Ex.R-14 – Reception/Waiting Area, Ex.R-15 – Final Draft, Ex.R-16 – Ground Floor Plan 750 sq.ft., Ex.R-17 to 20 – Ground Floor Plan,

6.                                 During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has placed on record email dated Oct. 11,2021 in which it has mentioned that “We refer you to our amount of Rs.25000/- which has been paid to you dated 18.3.2021 on account of the agreement dated 09.03.2021. Lack  of initiative and unwillingness to do work from your side  had not only delayed  our project but also resulted in huge losses.  Therefore, the agreement stands terminated and as per it you are under obligation to refund Rs.25,000/- and settle the accounts immediately.  We  wish to inform you that we have a strict policy pursuing all debts owed to us.  Accordingly if payment is not made in respect of above account within 7 days of date of this letter we will be forced to instruct our solicitors to initiate legal proceedings to recover the debt owed by you.

7.                                 Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the agreement of dated 19.03.2021 which was drafted by the opposite party with a malafied intention to cause unnecessary delay to the work.  It is evident from C-3 that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was transferred in the account of Himanshu Negi  bearing account No.48420200000147 as per agreement dated 19.03.2021.  As per agreement  dated 19.03.2021 opposite party has failed to provide services as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.   Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved.  Resultantly, the complaint is allowed.
8.                                 Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/-   to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.   The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on

account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  14.09.2022                                               (Amit Arora)

                                                                                                     President

                         District Consumer Disputes

             Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                            (Mukesh Sharma)

                  Member

            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                            (Indira Bhadana)

                  Member

            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.