District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.702/2023.
Date of Institution:27.10.2023.
Date of Order: 08.02.2024.
1. Amit Katyal aged 45 years son of late Shri Gopal Dass Katyal, Aadhar card No. 5585 1103 8431.
2. Smt. Sonia aged 41 years wife of Shri Amit Katyal, Aadhar card No. 4992 9588 4992 both residents of House No. 1525, Sector-62, Ballabgarh District, Faridabad Mobile No. 9871901516.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
I Home Masters Private Limited situated at Gaur City Mall 9th floor, Office No. 9131 Noida (U.P) through its authorized person. GSTIN:09AAGC12677E1ZF.
…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: Complainant Smt. Sonia Katyal, in person.
Opposite party ex-parte v/o dated 02.01.2024.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainants were the joint owner and in possession of the flat NO. 908 E Tower, Terra Lavinium, near D Mart, Sector-75, Faridabad carpet area 640.684, balcony area 100 sq. ft. and the said flat was purchased by the complainant by taken the loan from HDFC Bank apart from this the complainant had also taken the loan I.e. Rs.4,00,000/- for interior work from the HDFC Bank. The complainants had engaged to the opposite parties for do the interior work in respect of the above said flat and in this regard the opposite parties had given the quotation amounting to Rs.6,05,181.85ps. on dated 18.06.202 quotation NO. KGN/987190516. The complainants were satisfied with the quotation so givne by the opposite party to the complainant. On the basis of the quotation the opposite partis ahd started the work at the flat of the complainant and the complainants time to time paid the amount to the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions which was raised by the opposite party on the basis of the quotation. Initially the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.30,250/- to the opposite party and the opposite party started the work at the site of the complainant. Later on the complainants time to time paid the amount to the opposite party as per the demand of the opposite party. The amount of Rs.5,19,210/- had been paid by the complainant to the opposite parties upto now. The work of the opposite party was not good towards the site of the complainant, the opposite party using the material of lower quality and not as per the quotation which was disclosed by the opposite party on the quotation dated 18.06.2023 and design had also been changed by the opposite party without the prior permission of the complainant. The opposite party assured to the complainant the work of the site regarding the interior work would be completed on 28.07.2023 and the opposite parpty time to time given the false assurances pertaining to complete the interior work on dated 3.8.2023, 13.09.2023 and later on 15.10.2023. The complainants wee not satisfied with the work of the opposite party and the opposite party time to time demanding the extra amount from the complainant and the opposite party intentionally made the balance amount of Rs.2,03.920/- and the said amount was totally null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the complainants and the opposite party threatened to the complainant if the amount of Rs.2,03,920/- was not fulfilled then the interior work would not be completed. The complainants were not satisfied with the work of the opposite party and the opposite party failed to terms and condition of the quotation which was disclosed by the opposite party in the quotation although the opposite party was to given the best services pertaining to modular kitchen and the complainants found that the opposite party used the MDF instead of DHMR base for wall unit and base unit and used laminates of 0.8mm thickness in place of 1 mm and also used matt finish laminates instead of high gloss laminates and demanding extra charges for skirting and pelmet measurements were wrong and pantry design was not completed till date and used CP century hardware and accessories instead of inox and design was changed. Apartfrom this the opposite party increasing the T.V unit size i.e 64 in place 56 sq. ft. only to grab the huge amount from the complainants. The opposite party used the hardware of C.P.Century i.e. local company of Ghaziabad in place of Inox company and the opposite party also used the false ceiling in Gypsum in place Sakarni POP in which the area had been increased by the opposite party in entire rooms with an intention to grab the huge amount from the complainants by hook or crook. The opposite party also used the Polycab wires in place of Havells and the opposite party had also given the drawing of dressing unit in master bedroom in which the opposite party increasing the measurement and apart from the opposite party also changed the design of modular Wardrobe-1 (master bedroom) and the opposite party used the modular wardrobe-2 shutter (kids room)with wooden frame in place of aluminum frame and measurement was also wrong and the opposite party used the C.P.Centurary Hardware in place of Inox in both wardrobe-1 & 2 and the opposite party alson increased the xize of temple by making the false excel sheet with an intention to grab the huge amount form the complainants and the said mandir could not completed by the opposite party and the study table was not completed by the opposite party and desk was bending and the remaining of entire work could not be completed by the opposite party. It was settled that the opposite party would fixing he laminate regarding the 4 doors but the opposite party making the 6 doors pertaining to grab the huge amount from the complainant and due to the negligency on the part of the opposite party the laminate pertaining to the door had been damaging/phulna and the SS main gate lock and handle had been broken due to the inferior quality and the opposite party also provided the Kaiff Chimney for kitchen but the opposite party ignored the same. As per the terms and condition of the quotations all the works was to be completed in 25 days after final design and approval but no result came out.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) return the amount of Rs.5,19,210/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the complainants which was paid by the complainants for completing the interior work with best quality but the opposite party using of the material in lower quality.
b) pay Rs.5.00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses .
2. Notice was issued to opposite party on 23.11.2023 not received back either served or unserved. Complainant was placed on record ‘tracking details” in which notice to opposite party has been delivered. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, Opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.01.2024.
Tacking details filed in which it had been mentioned that ”Item Delivery Confirmed”. Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.04.2022.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–I Home Masters Private Limited with the prayer to: a) return the amount of Rs.5,19,210/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the complainants which was paid by the complainants for completing the interior work with best quality but the opposite party using of the material in lower quality. b) pay Rs.5.00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Amit Katyal,, Ex.C1 – Home Masters, Ex.C-2 – quotation dated June 18,2023, Ex.C-3 – final designs as per quotation, Ex.C-4 – receipt, Ex.C-5 – kitchen laminate olive green, Ex.C-6 - details of works,, Ex.C-7 – photos, Ex.C-8 – email, Ex.C-9 – summary of work, status and payments of 6. 6. 6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant.
7. After going through the evidence led by the complainant, the Commission is of the opinion that:
Total to be paid to opposite party : Rs.6,05,000/-
as per agreement
:
Paid by the complainant till today : Rs. 5,19,210/-
Less 50%work done by the opposite party : - Rs.2,59,605/-
Total : Rs.2,59,605/-
Hence, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,59,605/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs,5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant. No litigation charges will be given to the complainant as the complainant herself is pursuing the case. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 08.02.2024. 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.
