PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

                Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint instituted u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are that enticed by the advertisement given in the OPs in newspaper, the Complainant approached them for renovation/setting up a modular kitchen at his residence and paid a consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 29.9.2009, upon which the OPs assessed the premises for the aforesaid job. Thereafter, on the asking of the OPs, the Complainant further deposited Rs.50,000/- for preparation of the outlay plan, interior design, part execution, ordering of final material & further visits at the spot, subject to adjustment of the said amount to the rough estimate prepared at the time of delivery of the outlay plan and interior design. The OPs promised to provide 100% pure steel baskets, top quality hinges, channels, handles and perfectly treated anti termite, anti borer, anti rot, anti fungus wood duly covered/ laminated from both sides in shade of choice & also agreed to provide life long warrantee of the material supplied, but to the contrary the OPs provided the material of inferior quality and installed the same in poor workmanship, which according to Complainant tantamount to grave deficiency in service. When the OPs stopped responding to the efforts of the Complainant to resolve the issue, he got served a legal notice, which also did not yield the desired results. Hence this complaint.

2]             Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]             OPs in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant agreed to get a customized 3D design for their kitchen from the OPs & paid the requisite amounts, as demanded by the OPs, from time to time. It was denied that the OPs used the material of sub-standard quality and involved in installation of the modular kitchen in a poor workmanship. It was asserted that the delay, if any, on account of fittings, purchase of material etc., had been solely attributed to the Complainant and the material, so provided, was anti rusting and was of superior quality. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]             The main contention of the complainant is that the OPs were to renovate/set up a modular kitchen at his residence for which he paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as 50% of its cost i.e. for preparation of the outlay plan, interior design, part execution, ordering of final material and on the assurance of the OP to provide life long warrantee of the material supplied and that too in the scheduled time, but to the contrary the OPs provided the material of inferior quality and the kitchen is not yet made ready to use due to want of the various accessories.  In support of his contentions the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to show that he made a payment of Rs.9,000/- as advance to the OPs for assessment of the work and again a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide joint receipt Annexure C-3 was paid to the OPs. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the brochure of the said kitchen which was to be fitted at his residence.  Annexure C-4 is the copy of the rough estimate alongwith terms and conditions. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the bill vide for a sum of Rs.2735/- vide which the slab structure of the said kitchen was installed at his residence. Annexure C-6 (Colly) are the copies  of the bills to show that he has spent a sum of Rs.48,060/- for the purchase of certain goods required after installation of the modular kitchen. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the cheque for Rs.77,000/- which he claims to have made to the OPs but as per his version the OPs refused to accept it. Annexure C-9 is the copy of the letter sent by him to the OPs to send him the communication as he was available at his place and thereafter a legal notice Annexure C-10 was sent by him on 4.03.2010 and again in order to register his protest regarding non receiving of the brochure    (Annexure C-11), a letter dated 6.03.2010 vide Annexure C-12 was also sent by the complainant to the OPs.

7]             On the other hand the OPs contended that the material supplied to the complainant was of a very good quality and if there was any delay with regard to readiness of the kitchen, it was only due to the non payment of 50% of the balance amount as agreed between the parties vide Annexure C-4.  Their contention is that despite sending various letters to the complainant vide Annexure OP-1 dated 9.02.2010, Annexure OP-3 dated 23.02.2010, Annexure OP-5 dated 03.03.2010, the complainant did not turn up to make the payment, therefore the modular kitchen was not installed/fitted at his residence.

8]             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that at the time of making the estimate alongwith terms and conditions vide Annexure C-4, it has been clearly mentioned on it, that 50% advance payment was to be made by the complainant and thereafter 50% of the payment was to be made at the time of delivery from the factory. The relevant part of the terms and conditions are reproduced as under:-

                “Terms and conditions-

                2.     50% advance.

                3.     50% at the time of delivery from the factory”.

        Admittedly the complainant has paid only 50% of advance money to the OPs but has not paid 50% of the balance amount as agreed between the parties vide Annexure C-4, which has been placed on record by the complainant himself.  During the time of arguments, the OPs have stated that the accessories of the kitchen are ready in all respects and they are ready to install the same at the residence of the complainant subject to payment of 50% amount as agreed between the parties.

9]             Contrary to the above facts, the complainant has not been able to prove as to why he did not pay the balance 50% amount to the OPs despite receiving various letters/reminders for the same?  The contention of the complainant that the part material which was supplied/fitted in the kitchen was of sub-standard quality cannot be accepted as correct because his contention is not supported by any document/expert opinion which could prove that the said material was of a sub-standard quality.  The next contention of the complainant that the OPs had delayed in fitting of the modular kitchen is also not accepted as correct because perusal of the case clearly shows that the delay if any was only on his part and not on the OPs. Had he been made the balance 50% amount to the OPs as agreed vide Annexure C-4, there might not have any delay on the part of the OPs.  Otherwise also, the complainant has not been able to produce any agreement/document to prove that the OPs were liable to complete the kitchen work in any stipulated time or were liable to do the same without receiving 50% of the balance amount.  As per Annexure C-4, 100% payment was to be made to the OPs, which admittedly in the present case has not been made. All other allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint against are only his oral assertions but are not supported by any cogent evidence to hold the OPs liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

10]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion, in order to meet the ends of justice, the complaint has been allowed conditionally.  The complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant is directed to pay the balance amount to the OPs as agreed between the parties vide Annexure C-4, within 7 days and thereafter the OPs are directed to complete the kitchen work within the minimum period which should not however exceed 20 days from the date of payment from the complainant.  The complaint is disposed off accordingly. 

11]            Needless to mention that if the complainant did not comply with the above said order then he would not be liable for any further relief from this Forum and on the other hand if the OPs did not comply with the said order, then they would be liable for refund of the entire amount to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of its deposit to them by the complainant with respect to the installation of the kitchen in question.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.