BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 26^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITHA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

     Complainant filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to refund the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the opponent with interest and compensation for the mental agony.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant availed services from the OP for the interior work for his home by approaching the outlet of OP on 20.03.2022. He had discussion on designs, and his requirement with relationship manager of OP company after convincing with digital designs on their laptop, OP provided the detailed quotation on 27.03.2022 by E-mail.  He was informed that there is extra discount of 10% for the booking done on or before 30.03.2022.  Accordingly complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance to Home Lane on 27.03.2022, OP issued for the same. In July 2022, complainant contacted OP agent for finalizing the interior designs (regarding material and customization as per the customer requirement), but OP told that there was no customizing provision and only on company made pre-designs/materials will be supplied.  After repeated discussion, the service offered by OP found not satisfactory and not as per his requirement. Hence complainant decided to withdraw his transaction and requested to refund RS.50,000/- paid as an advance.  But OP informed orally that the advance amount cannot be refunded back, customers have to get the interior work done for a minimum worth of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Thus complainant stated that OP miss-represented with false promise and exploiting the customers through unethical marketing practice i.e., unfair trading practice. Hence he approached this commission seeking his amount of RS.50,000/- with interest and compensation for mental agony.

3. Initially, complainant made all 3 relationship managers as mentioned in Doc.No.1 quotation on 04.03.2023.  Complainant withdrawn complaint against OP No.2 and 3, retained OP No.1 only.  Hence, complaint against OP No.2 and 3 was dismissed as withdrawn. Notice sent to OP through RPAD which was duly served on OP.  He did not appear before this commission on the date of appearance and not filed his version.  Hence he placed Ex-parte.

4.  After the stage of appearance of OP, complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterated as stated in his complaint.  In support of his oral evidence, he filed documentary evidence which is marked as ANNEXURE-1 to 4.  Complainant submitted his oral arguments and also files wrong argument to prove his case. 

5.     The Points that arise for our consideration are:-

Point No.1:- Whether complainant proves that OP indulging in unfair trade practice?

Point No.2:- Whether complainant entitled to get   relief as paid?

                                                       Point No.3:- What order

6.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                             Point No.1:- in the affirmative

                             Point No.2:- in the affirmative

                             Point No.3:- see the final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- Complainant as stated in his complaint wished to get his home interiors by availing the services of OP after approaching OP’s outlet.  After having discussion on the interiors that a Home Lane outlet provided the detailed quotation through E-mail on 27.03.2022 which is at Doc.No.1. As per the Doc.No.1, interior pertains to work house of complainant was estimated for Rs.11,61,637/- by OP, as an advance complainant paid Rs.50,000/- cash as an advance.  It is evidenting through Doc.No.2 payment receipt issued by OP dated 27.03.2022, Doc.No.3 discloses the payment and the details of the transaction between complainant and OP in the payment acknowledgement. Above documents exhibiting the payment of Rs.50,000/- has made by complainant to OP and same has received by OP on the same day.

8. OP did not appear before this commission and defend the case by filing his version and affidavit. Hence the documentary evidences placed by complainant are unchallenged and complainant proves his transaction with OP.  When the complainant not find any satisfactory offers by the OP, he wish to withdraw his transaction, and requested to refund Rs.50,000/- from the OP. OP did not obey the claim of the complainant and not refunded his amount, as it is non refundable amount. Per contra OP also insisted complainant to get the interior done for a minimum worth of Rs.1,50,000/-, though he is not interested to continue the services of OP.

9. Considering the complainant and documents placed before this commission,  it is not a small amount to waive off. If at all OP has made any digital work for the complainants house, it is fair to deduct some amount out of Rs.50,000/-. But OP did not do any efforts, retaining the entire amount without providing any service to complainant. OP is not fair and just on the part of OP.

10. OP neither appeared before this commission to defend its case nor refunded the amount. Complainant proves OP indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of on OP, by not refunding Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for which OP is liable to pay.  Accordingly we answered Point No.1 in affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- On perusal of the documents and the allegation made in complaint, the payment has made for the availing the services of interior of home quotation, is evidencing through the detailed quotation and receipt issued by OP.  The complainant withdraw his transaction in the month of July 2022, when he made OP agent for finalizing the interior designs and discussed about the materials to be used and customization as per his requirements.  OP did not agreed for the customization of the project on the ground that the company made pre-design material will be supplied and no customization provision.  Hence OP can’t retain the amount he paid only on that condition of non-refundable without giving any services as he assured.  Therefore OP is liable to refund sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and Rs.3,000/- towards compensation, Rs2,000/- for cost of litigation.  For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.2 in the affirmative.

12. Point No.3:- In view of our findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complainant filed under section 35 of consumer protection act of 2019, is allowed.

2. OP shall pay Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of payment till this date.

3. OP further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of litigation within 30 days from this day, failing which OP shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 26^th day of APRIL, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party ;

NIL