Date of filing :20.4.2016
Judgment : Dt.19.12.2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Smt. Roshni Laha alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Indranil Mukherjee and (2) Mrs. Gopa Mukherjee.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that she is the owner of the flat No.17A being Premises No.54/10, D. C. Dey Road, Kolkta-700 015. She assigned OP No.1 & 2 being Interior Decorator with the work of interior decoration in the said flat and accordingly, a quotation dt.3.7.2011 was submitted by the OPs, wherein the price was finalized at Rs.12,30,000/-. It was agreed that OPs will complete the work within a period of 4/5 months from the date of the quotation. The OPs also promised to provide one PC 20” LED TV Samsung / LG or one piece air conditioner. But they did not provide the same. OPs completed the negligible portion of their work and stopped working after doing 20/25% of the work. They kept asking for money. The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.8,50,000/- by cheque and Rs.3,20,000/- by cash. So, the Complainant has paid in total Rs.11,70,000/- to the OPs. The OPs stopped the work and when the Complainant visited the office, she found it closed and the OPs were untraceable. The OPs have deviated from the quotation. They kept giving fake promises. Ultimately, the Complainant sent a letter to the OPs in their official address. But, they neither completed the work as per the quotation nor returned the money. The Complainant has also lodged a police complaint against the OPs at the Tollygunge P.S. So, the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the OPs to return the amount of Rs.11,70,000/- with interest, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and the litigation cost.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of the quotation dt.3.7.2011, copy of the Bank Statement showing payment to the OPs, money receipts, the copy of the complaint made by the Complainant at Tollygunge P.S., copy of notice dt.4.3.2016 sent by the Complainant to the OPs, copy of reply by the OP dt.10.3.2016, again notice by Complainant dt.3.4.2016 and reply by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP to the notice dt.3.4.2016.
OP has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is contended by the OP that they have already completed the job as per quotation and made demand of balance consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- which was not paid by the Complainant and to avoid payment, present complaint has been filed by the Complainant. So, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of trial, both the parties have filed their respective affidavit-in-chief, followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately, written notes of argument has also been filed by both the parties.
So, the following points require determination :-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
Complainant has claimed that OP was assigned to do interior decoration work in her flat as per quotation dt.3.7.2011. The said quotation has been filed by the Complainant, wherefrom it appears that ultimately the price was settled at Rs.12,30,000/- for the said decoration works. The fact of issuance of the said quotation dt.3.7.2011 to do the interior decoration and that the price was settled at Rs.12,30,000/- has not been disputed and denied by the OPs. Complainant has claimed that the OPs started the work, but only 20/30% of the work was carried out, whereas, according to the OP he completed the work but rest of the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- has not been paid by the Complainant. In order to show the payment of Rs.11,50,000/- as claimed by the Complainant in the complaint petition, she has filed the Bank Statement as well as the money receipts. But on a careful perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it appears from the copy of the notice dated 10.08.2013 sent by the Complainant through her Ld. Advocate that she paid Rs.1,40,000/- and then Rs.8,60,000/-. So, in total Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the Complainant. No document is filed by the Complainant that any further payment was made after 10.08.2013. So, claim of the Complainant that she paid Rs.11,50,000/- cannot be accepted.
During the proceeding of this case, a petition was filed by the OPs praying for appointment of an expert in interior decoration to inspect the flat in question to see whether the work was carried out by OP. But the Complainant, in reply, stated that when the work was stopped by OP she at her own cost has completed the work and on hearing both the parties, vide order dt.15.11.2018, petition filed by the OP was rejected on the said ground. So, the question requires to be determined whether the Complainant got the incomplete work done at her own cost or the work was completed by the OP as per the quotation?
On a careful perusal of the documents annexed with the complaint, it appears that the Complainant has also lodged a complaint before the Tollygunge P.S. on 12.9.2013, wherein she has stated that she has paid 70% of the contract amount but the OPs did not complete the work equivalent to the amount paid by the Complainant. She also stated she had purchased the kitchen granite tiles and other flooring items at her own cost. So from the said document, it appears that the OP had not completed the work. Apart from this, the Complainant has also filed documents dt.4.6.2014 and 10.6.2014, which show that the Complainant has purchased the materials for the purpose of decoration such as ply, laminate colour putty brush, material for master bedroom, drawing room, guest room kidz room, modular kitchen, bathroom and paid Rs.3,20,118/- and Rs.94,000/- respectively. Another receipt dt.10.6.2014 is for Rs.1,28,100/-, wherefrom it appears that said amount was paid by the Complainant towards labour charges for carpenter work for different rooms in the flat. These three documents/receipts have been issued by Shibaji Dey other design executive. So, these documents sufficiently establish the claim of the Complainant that the work was not completed by the OP as per quotation and as it was stopped, she had to do it at her own cost. If that be so, then Complainant is entitled to the said amount.
So far as the claim of the Complainant that OPs also promised to provide one piece of 20” LED TV and or air conditioner, on careful perusal of the quotation dt.3.7.2011, it appears that there is no mention of providing of TV or AC as claimed by the Complainant. So, the receipt filed by the Complainant showing purchase of TV, AC and refrigerator will have no bearing in this case. But, since the Complainant has paid Rs.5,42,218/- in total towards the work done by her she is entitled to the said amount of Rs.5,42,218/-. However, it may also be pertinent to point out that the Complainant was liable to pay to the OP total sum of Rs.12,30,000/- as per quotation, but, admittedly, she paid Rs.10,00,000/- as discussed above. So, from the said amount of Rs.5,42,218/-, Rs.2,30,000/- has to be deducted and thus the Complainant is entitled to Rs.3,12,218/-. She is also entitled to the compensation as she has suffered harassment and mental agony due to non-completion of the work by the OP and ultimately had to approach to the Police also. So, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be justified as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Hence
ordered
CC/182/2016 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to pay Rs.3,12,218/- to the Complainant within two months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months, failing which the entire sum shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
