| Complaint Case No. CC/195/2022 | | ( Date of Filing : 04 Nov 2022 ) |
| | | | 1. Mr. Sanjoy Das S/O- Lt. Rajeshwar Das | | Radhagobinda Pally, Sonarpur, Near Canning Line Crossing, Ganasakti More, Kol-700 150 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Inoventive Interior an unit of Three D Spot Design | | 87/12/144C, Raja Subodh Chandra Mullick Road, Kol-700 047 and also at C-52, Ramgarh, Garia, Kol-700 047 | | 2. Mr. Sukanta Shee S/O- Rabindranath Shee | | 87/12/144C, Raja Subodh Chandra Mullick Road, S 24 Pgs, Kol- 700 047 and also at C-52, Ramgarh, Garia, Kol- 700 047 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Member The Complainant Mr. Sanjoy Das of Radhagobinda pally, Sonarpur, Ganashakti More, Kolkata 700150 filed a petition u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and averred through affidavit that it was planned sometimes during February 2020 to get some interior decoration work done at his home through the OP Interior decoration company. Being induced by advertisement of the OP1 company in the website namely “Inoventive Interior” of 3D Spot Design, 87/12/144C Raja SC Mullick Road, C52 Ramgarh Kolkata 700047, the complainant paid an advance money of Rs. 20,000/- by cash on 18.03.2020 to Mr Sukanta Shee (OP2) of same address to OP1 organisation on 24.02.2020. The OP company sent a quotation dated 20.03.2020 (annexure A) for Rs. 7,75,000/- to complainant. It was mentioned in the said quotation that the job work would start within 3 days from the date of such advance payment. But at this juncture due to Covid-19 and declaration of nationwide lockdown the job could not commence. But still and even thereafter, the OPs did not show any inclination towards commencing the job in terms of quotation and rather demanded a higher amount on the pretext of price increase meanwhile. Being compelled, complainant had to reduce the volume of job work and accordingly OP2 sent a revised quotation dated 27.06.2020 (annexure B) for Rs. 7,63,000/- with an assurance from OPs to get the said work completed by 75 days. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- by NEFT. Thereafter as agreed between the parties the job work was added with some more volume for another Rs. 36,000/- totaling to Rs. 7,99,000/-. Accordingly the complainant paid another Rs. 5,20,000/- by Cheque payment and NEFT on 4 more occasions for a period upto 23.08.2020. By a statement namely ‘party statement’, it was agreed by OP having taken Rs. 7,40,000/- in total (annexure C) from the complainant. But inspite of lapse of another one year, the OPs neither took up the suspended job nor completed the same. Upon repeated persuasion from complainants, the OP ultimately signed and executed a document on 08.08.2021 with an assurance to restart the work and to complete by 10.09.2021. As per said jointly signed statement dated 08.08.2021 (annexure D) between parties, the payment receipt details and timeline for outstanding work were documented. But that promise also did not materialise and the OPs deliberately neglected to comply with their assurances as per said document dated 08.08.2021. Lastly on 21.02.2022 the OPs disclosed their inability to complete the job and agreed to refund the overpaid amount for Rs.1,75,000/-to the complainant, which also got failed. The failures on the part of the OPs were recorded by complainant vide e-mail dated 21.02.2021 (annexure E). Legal notice from the Ld. Advocate dated 01.08.2022 (annexure F) was served on OP, but without any remedy. This act of OPs in a negligent manner is a deficiency in service under the scope and meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such, the complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 1,75,000/- that was advanced for the proposed work along with a compensation of another Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony and appropriate litigation cost. The complainant filed documents as exhibits in support of claim as per annexures serialized as mentioned above. The OP appeared before the commission but no W/V was filed and as such the case has been running ex parte as per order dated 06.02.2023 against the OP. Evidence on affidavit was filed by the complainant which supports the original complaint petition. The argument was heard on 27.04.2023 as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant when OP was absent. As such, the complaint was adjudicated based on the evidence, exhibits and materials available on record. Upon perusal of the records and documents along with exhibits it appears that there is no dispute in respect of the work details and monetary transactions between the parties. As the statement showing the receipt of payment has been issued by the OP company to the complainant for providing service for the proposed work hence the complainant is very much covered as a consumer under the scope and meaning of Section 7(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The value of the complaint and the geographical jurisdiction of the same is also duly covered under the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Section 34 (1) and 34 (2) of the said Act. Hence the complainant is undoubtedly a consumer as per definition of the Act. Regarding considering the pandemic situation of Covid-19 it is obvious that the proposed work had to be kept suspended due to prevailing regulations issued by various authorities from time to time during the concerned period of Covid 19, but that does not give liberty to the OP company not to refund the money or allow the work remain incomplete. There is no cancellation clause or written contract exhibited. The OP as a service provider is completely liable for the risk involved in a business situation while discharging promised services to their consumers in full fairness and even if there was valid reasons for not to complete the promised services, they should have given agreed amount back to the complainant. Otherwise this becomes an unfair trade practice by promising to provide a service by thereafter adopting a deceptive practices by failing to complete the job or make refund the advanced amount. On the facts and circumstances and materials on record reveals it palpably clear that the OP company has adopted unfair trade practices towards the consumer by not refunding the advanced money that they received, although they could render only part service. The documents as exhibited by the complainant carries impeccable evidentiary value that was not contested or challenged by other side, being the case was heard ex-parte. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of case Supreet Batra v. Union of India 2003 (1) SLT 730, held that "service provider cannot forfeit the fee or consideration for services, which are not provided”. This speaks volumes about the 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the opposite parties in causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gains to the opposite parties. In view of the above, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Hence, it is Ordered That the complaint case no. CC/195/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-parte basis against the OPs. The OPs are hereby directed, jointly and severally, to refund the residual advanced amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventyfive thousand) only to the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental agony and delay. The OPs are also directed, jointly and severally, to make payment of litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to the complainant. All the payment in terms of this order will be made within 60 days from date of this order failing which a simple interest @ 10% will get accrued till completion of full payment. If the Opposite party fails to comply with the above said direction within the period mentioned above, then the complainant is at liberty to put the entire order into execution as per due course of law. Let a plain copy of this Order be provided to both the parties free of cost as per CPR. |
|
| |
