BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 08/10/2010
Date of Order : 20/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 531/2010
Between
Fahad Jalal, S/o. Tahaa, | :: | Complainant |
Managing Partner, M/s. Elmore Electronics and Home Appliances, Opp. Apple Towers, N.H. 47, Bye-pass, Edappally. P.O., Cochin – 24. |
| (By Adv. Aginov Mathappan, J. Mathappan Associates Advocates, Manchu Complex, P.T. Usha Road, Kochi - 11) |
And
Mohammad Ayub, | :: | Opposite party |
Proprietor, M/s. Beecha Associates, VMB Road, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024. |
| (By Adv. S.P. Chaly, 40/1677, 1st floor, Choolackal Buildings, Convent Junction, Market Road, Cochin – 682 011) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant entrusted the interior decoration work of his business concern with the opposite party for Rs. 15 lakhs by an oral agreement dated 08-07-2009 and paid Rs. 25,000/- as initial payment. The complainant scheduled the imagination of his business in February 2010. The opposite party agreed to complete the work in January 2010 itself. But the opposite party failed to complete the work. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to pay Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation. The opposite party sent a reply raising untenable contentions. The complainant is entitled to get the amount from the opposite party together with costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party :
This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Only the Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the proceedings in the Forum is summary in nature. The opposite party is entitled to get huge amounts from the complainant on account of show room interior designing and other connected works. The opposite party has received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant. Further, the complainant used to make payments towards the works done in the showroom. The complainant failed to point out even a particular deficiency in the works done by the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainant.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-
Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 15 lakhs from the opposite party by way of compensation?
Costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. :- There is undoubtedly a privity of contract between a consumer and a service provider that is between the complainant and the opposite party. There is no contradiction to this in the pleadings or evidence . However, there is a better plea that the redress of the grievance lies elsewhere as contended by the opposite party before the Civil Court. Therefore, we close the proceedings in this Forum with a direction to the complainant to receive back the complaint and related documents to file the same before the appropriate authority, if advised so. In view of the above, no further contentions are to be entertained.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 20th day of August 2011.
