DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No.101/2021

Date of Filing:                      Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

       08.04.2021                                   29.09.2021                              07.02.2023

P R E S E N T                 :-   Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.

                                          :-   Sri.  Abhijit Basu      …………………. Member.

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.

            The Complainant stated that he contacted with the Opposite Party for interior design named Sen Creative Interior Design on 4^th October, 2020 for interior decoration within stipulated period. Inconsonance of such an event a negotiation was made by and between the parties and the Complainant agreed consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- only and the same would be paid in four installments of Rs. 1,12,500/-, initial advance to be made before the commencement of work.

            As per Complainant’s version the O.P. was agreed to complete the entire interior decoration of the Complainant’s with the aforementioned agreed price. It is to be taken into consideration that as per the said agreement it was agreed that the Opposite party will complete 11 units along with a wardrobe unit, amounting to Rs. 1,36,800/- within a period of 45 to 50 days from the date of signing of the agreement. In the meantime, the Complainant paid first three installments of Rs. 3,50,000/- which has been accepted by the Opposite Party and to that effect the O.P. issued money receipt to the Complainant.

            The Complainant further stated that the Opposite party failed to complete the work within the stipulated period i.e. 4^th October, 2020. So, the Complainant has no other alternative and so that he approached the Barasat Police Station pursuant to the Opposite Party was summoned by the police authorities and it was decided on 07/12/2020 the Opposite Party will complete the unfinished work at an agreed consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- which will be paid in three installments and the Complainant has already paid two installments amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/- and as such the Complainant has still date made a payment of Rs. 4,55,000/-.

On 29/12/2020, the Opposite party handed over to the Complainant a further bill of Rs. 1,76,882/- which again completely disregarded the negotiation arrived between the parties at Barasat Police Station. Having no other alternative, the Complainant issued a legal notice through his advocate dated 06/01/2021. The O.P. also sent a reply through their advocate on 19/01/2021 and also denied all its duties and liabilities.

                                                                                                   Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . .

: :  2  : :

C.C. No.101/2021

 The Complainant completed the pending work of the Opposite Party by taking the help of another vendor with an additional cost of Rs. 2,24,029/-.

On 19/01/2021 the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they ignored the same and finally the Complainant on 08/04/2021 lodged this case.

The O.P. did not appear to contest the case and hence the case was heard ex-parte from 08/06/2022. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant has proved his case by evidence on oath and therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for.

Considering the fact of the case as per written complaint and also the evidence of the Complainant and the copies of documents we find that the Complainant has proved her case that he paid Rs. 4,55,000/- for the interior decoration and the work was not completed and the incomplete work was completed by another vendor on 01/02/2021 incurred an additional cost of Rs. 2,24,029/-.

The Complainant has proved the case by evidence on oath and there is no evidence to the contrary to disbelieve the Complainant’s evidence on oath.

Accordingly we find that the Complainant has proved his case ex-parte and is entitled to get the decree.

            In the result the case succeeds ex-parte.

From the record, it appears that the Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission and the case do run ex-parte against the O.Ps from 08/06/2022.

Prayer of the Complainants:-

1. The OP is directed to refund Rs. 4,55,000/- due to non performance of the agreement dated 04/10/2020 to the Complainant.
2. The OP is directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and unnecessary harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. The OP is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- for causing damages to the Complainant.
4. Pass any other order / orders as the Ld. District Commission may deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.

Following issued were framed for the purpose of decision:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief / reliefs in this case.

Decision with reasons:-

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.

On perusal of the materials along with the supporting affidavit related to documents available in the case record as well as hearing of argument by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, it is revealed that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- to the O.P.   

                                                                                                               Contd. To Page No. 3

: :  3  : :

C.C. No.101/2021

 Here the status of the OPs is service provider and the Complainant being a customer of the OP so the Complainant becomes a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Complainant resides at Haringhata Ward No. 2, P.O. – Subarnapur, P.S. – Haringhata, Nadia – 741249 and the claimed amount does not exceed the pecuniary limit of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has ample power to try this case.

We have perused the complaint as well as Examination-in-Chief on affidavit filed by the Complainant. We have perused the copy of the money receipt along with copy of the certificate which was provided by the O.P members with the supporting affidavit and other documents filed by the Complainant. On perusal of the aforesaid materials it appears that the Complainant paid Rs. 4,55,000/- on different dates for interior decoration. As such there is deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps partly.

The discussed points bear positive results. As such we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to receive his deposited amount with interest and he is also entitled to other relief/reliefs and that will be reflected in the ordering portion.

Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

Fees paid by the Complainant.

Hence,

It is ordered,

            That the case being no. C.C./101/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P.

The O.P. is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,24,029/- to the Complainant for non compliance of the agreement and non performing as per agreement within 3 months from this date i.e delivery of judgment, failing which the Complainant may take steps according to law.

            Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

Member                                            

Member                                                                                 Member