BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 7^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, direction to refund Rs.15,00,000/- from OP along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15.01.2022, direction to OP to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service caused such other relief.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainants residing in given address approached interior work design company namely Louiswood Design Café, Bangalore for the interior work for their house. At the initial stage of negotiation OP made high promises, assurances and in all their conversation, OP represented that company is experienced and well worsed with interior works and assured the complainants that need not worry for anything and he will take care of his interior design of the house. OP assured that he will complete the interior work within 90 days and same will be handed over after the completion of his satisfaction. Believing the assurances given by OP, complainant paid the amount in various dates and OP has acknowledged the same.

3. Complainant paid total of Rs.15,00,000/- from 23.02.2021 to 09.12.2021. After the acknowledgement of 95% of agreed amount OP has not started the work as he assured but OP has not even completed 25% of interior work on the date of filing this complaint. After the several request from the complaint, person named Younus who is the project manager of OP company calls up the complainant and states that work at the premises has been stopped as no material is available at the premises. On the reason that the amount has not been paid by complainant. This information from the project manger surprised complainants has, 95% of amount is already paid to OP and the representation of OP caused mental trauma and complainants has undergone loss from delay in the interior work. Complainants called up OP and confronted on the issue, to the utter shock OP without any regret, in very casual manner informed complainant that workers have resigned from the company and he cannot complete the work as there is no stock and demanded more money from the complainants. OP has not even give any timelines to complete the interior works at the premises of complainants. Complainants underwent mental agony as they have invested their hard earned money to OP to complete the work. Complainant stated that the efforts they made as went in vain as OP was very rude and arrogant and demanded more money from complainants. For the incomplete interior works, which caused deficiency of service from OP. Complainants thereafter requested OP to refund the money given towards interior work but OP refused to refund the same and also threatened the complainants if they ask for any refund of money.

4. Complainants further stated that with no other options left, to get their money back and or their interior works to be completed, they filed Police Complaint for criminal breach of trust and money have committed breach of trust. Complainant alleges that OP with intention to wrongful gains and malafide intention collected 95% of agreed amount from complainants to execute the interior works and stopped in between the work compensation and cheated Rs.15,00,000/- to OP, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP. On 15.01.2022 OP refused to continue the interior work and demanded more money from the complainants. OP did not take any action to complete it till the date. Hence, they approached this commission, sought the relief referred supra.

5. Notice sent to OP through RPAD which was duly served on OP. OP called out on the date of appearance, but remained absent. Hence, OP placed Ex-parte.

6. The stage is set down to adduce affidavit evidence of the complainants, accordingly complainant No.1 has filed her affidavit evidence reiterated as stated in their complaint, also filed 3 documents which are marked as ExP1 to Ex.P8. We perused the records, heard arguments of complainants and proceed to pass the following order.

7. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

8.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

9. Point No.1:- As complainant stated in the complaint, complainant No.1&2 are husband and wife staying in the address given in the complaint and decided to execute the interior works for their home. Believing the representation of OP complainants have handed over the assignment of interior works to OP.  OP issued estimation categorically for sum of Rs.15,33,515/-, which is at Ex.P.4 and other accessories estimation for sum of Rs.77,360/-, which is at Ex.P.5. According to that, complainants paid Rs.15,00,000/- on various dates from 23.02.2021 to 09.12.2021, they paid sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the same has acknowledged by OP. The bank statement discloses the same produced by the complainants, which is at Ex.P.1. OP has issued receipt for the same are at Ex.P.6. As complainants alleged in the complaint, OP has only done 25% of work after the receipt of money till the date of filing this complaint that is 02.12.2022. It is almost an year, the half done interior work has shows in the photograph taken by complainants and produced before this commission, is not completed work even after receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainants. As we all aware that left over or incomplete work will not be taken by the other interior designers.

10. The crux of mater heard is with an intention to have good looking and presentable, convenient, atmosphere in house, complainants have been given an assignment to OP but the OP has left out without doing completion and on perusal of the photograph submitted by complainant, we can analyze the day to day life is hampered and might be miserable by the half done work and it is very inconvenient and ugly. In our considered view it is difficult to lead life comfortably in this stage as shown in the picture. Complainants have stated that they have filed complaint before the commissioner of police, Bangalore regarding criminal breach of trust and fraud, even after receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- which is at Ex.P3. It shows the attitude of OP without executing entire assignment and handed over the completed work as assured by him, he caused deficiency of service as alleged by complainants. It might have caused lot of disturbances and mental trauma to complainants. The documentary evidence placed by complainants are unchallenged, OP neither appeared before this commission to defend his case nor completed the interior works even after receipt of the notice from this commission. It definitely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP and it shows his attitude with malafide intention. He has taken this assignment and cheated the complainants. On the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- By perusing the bank statement which is at Ex.P1, he paid Rs.15,00,000/- towards interior works to OP. But as complainants stated in their complaint, OP has done only 25% of interior work and spent money on that. Considering those statements of complainants, OP has spent Rs.3,75,000/- out of Rs.15,00,000/-, the left over the work is approximately about Rs.11,25,000/- instead of Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence OP is liable to refund of Rs.11,25,000/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 15.01.2022 when the OP refused to continue with the interior work and demanded more money from the complainants.

12. Instead of completion of interior works of complainants house and handed over the same with beautiful look, OP left out work in between, in very uncomfortable stage, might caused difficult situation to complainant, made them to suffer physically and mentally. It might have caused sufferings in respect to financially and mentally for the period of 1 year, which amounts to deficiency that OP is liable to compensate by paying Rs.1,00,000/-. Since, OP has neither refunded the amount to complainants nor completed the work, retaining the heavy amount of Rs.11,25,000/-, is unjust and unfair. OP made complainants to approached this commission by paying litigation cost. Hence, OP is also liable to pay the cost of litigation of sum of Rs.10,000/-. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in partly affirmative.

13. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-                                        

                                       ORDER

 i) Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is allowed in part.

ii) OP is liable to refund Rs.11,25,000/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum from 15.01.2022 till realization.

iii) OP is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainants within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 7^th day of AUGUST, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL