D.O.F:25/08/2022
D.O.O:30/12/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.202/2022
Dated this, the 30th Day of December 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sahira Bhanu. M.K, aged 47 years,
W/o Aboobacker Parangadi,
Mooliyadka House, : Complainant
Perdala Post, Badiyadka Village,
Kasaragod Taluk and District,
PIN – 671 551
(Adv. K.K.Mohammed Shafi)
And
Jaffar Sadik. B, aged 41 years
S/o Ahammed Kunhi,
Residing at Vaninagar House, : Opposite Party
Padre Village, Vaninagar Post,
Kasaragod Taluk and District,
PIN – 671 552
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 34 and 35 of the consumer protection act 2019.
The fact in brief of the case is that as opposite party represented that he is an expert in the field of interior works, the complainant entrusted the interior work of his residential house with him. After discussion and negotiation in presence of one Muhammad Ali, the following works are entrusted with the opposite party:- (a) sealing, (b) kitchen cabins, (c) stare case, (d) making and fittings of doors and windows etc. needed to the house. The total amount of the works was fixed at Rs 12,00,000/-. Thereafter the opposite party was collecting amount from the complainant. He collected the whole agreed amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- prior to the starting of the work. The complainant paid certain amount to the account of the opposite party through google pay and also complainant transferred amount from her account maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and Canara Bank. The opposite party did not carry out the work as he agreed. He brought certain workers under the guise of starting the work. He brought a carpenter namely Dvaid D’Souza to the house. He engaged Hindi speaking people to show sealing work. Their names were not disclosed to the complainant. After pointing out certain people as his workers, he has not turned up to the complainant’s house. The workers did not come to attend the work as the opposite party not paid wages to them. Thus, the interior work of the house stalled. For 6 months the above work remained in that state. The complainant many times contacted the opposite party, but he was avoiding her to escape from responsibility.
At last, the opposite party agree to repay the amount collected from the complainant. The service rendered by the opposite party to the complainant is deficient. He ought to have completed the work within the time. Since the opposite party did not carry out the work as agreed, the complainant had to complete the work by entrusting other workers. Even though the opposite party agreed to repay the entire amount and issued two cheques for the amount, they returned unpaid for want of funds in the account. The finishing of the house construction work totally effected due to the recaecalcitrent act of the opposite party. The complainant had to carry out the work spending more amount as the cost of work was increasing, the complainant and her family resided in a rented flat as she has no other house. The amount invested by the complainant is blocked due to irresponsible act of the opposite party. The complainant suffered untold hardships and misery and financial loss, due to deficiency in service rendered by opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay compensation also to the complainant for the mental agony and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to repay the entire Rs.12,00,000/- with interest along with a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost. The notice issued to the opposite party returned as refused. The name of the opposite party was called, absent and was set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the original of the agreement executed in between complainant and opposite party dated.18.11.2021, Ext.A2 is the original cheque No.114227 of Syndicate Bank dated.02.04.2022, A3 is original cheque No.144226 of Syndicate bank dated 12.04.2022, A4 is Return memo of dishonour of cheques.
Based on the pleadings and evidence in this case the following issues are framed for the consideration.
1. Whether there is any service of deficiency on the part of the opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are discussed together. The case is filed for the return of the amount paid towards the interior works and for the compensation for the mental agony and hardships due to the service deficiency of the opposite party. The complainant states that believing the words of the opposite party that he is an expert in the field of interior work, she entrusted the opposite party with the interior works of her residential house for an amount of 12,00,000/-. Even though the opposite party received the entire amount from the complainant, he did not executed the work as agreed. The complainant had to complete the work by entrusting with some other workers. Even though the opposite party agreed to repay the entire amount and issued two cheques for the amount, the above cheques were returned unpaid as there was no sufficient funds in the account. This is a clear case of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party, due to which the complainant suffered several hardships apart from monitory loss. The complainant produced the original documents Ext.A1 to A3 and she succeeded in proving her case.
Considering the fact and circumstance of the case and in the absence of rebuttal evidence this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay the entire amount of 12,00,000/- with interest. He is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
The complainant estimates her damages due to the service deficiency of the opposite party to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, but she has not produced any proof of details of such a huge loss. This commission hold that Rs.1,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 8% from 25.08.2022 the date of complaint till the payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakhs only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation cost.
The time for compliance is 30 days from the date of the receipt of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Original agreement
A2: Original Cheque No.114227, Dtd 02/04/2022
A3: Original Cheque No.114226, Dtd 12/04/2022
A4 Series are Return memo of dishonour of cheques
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
