Date of filing : 08.05.2018
Date of Judgment: 09.11.2021
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant namely Dr. Sourav Pal under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties ( referred to as O.Ps hereinafter ) namely (1) Mr. Sanjib Bhaduri (2) Mr. Amitava Chakraborty , alleging deficiency in service on their part.
The case of the complainant , in short, is that O.Ps are the partners of the Firm namely ‘Virtue Interior’ and they entered into agreement with the complainant on 6.7.2016 for making modular kitchen at a cost of Rs. 70,000/- and subsequently also agreed for doing some other interior works including one wardrobe with teak wood pasting at a cost of Rs. 1,75,000/- . The work was to be completed within specific dates. A total sum of Rs.1,94,000/- has been paid by the complainant . Despite the deadline O.Ps failed to complete the work within the given deadline and further left numerous of latches and defects in said work. The O.Ps also used poor and cheap materials. The complainant has paid an excess sum of Rs. 11000/- which was promised by the O.Ps to return within 12.8.2017. But they failed to return the said sum. O.Ps had also issued a cheque of Rs.40,000/- dated 21.7.2017 ,whereby they had assured that they would complete the unfinished work and on finishing of such work the said cheque would be returned. But , neither they completed the work and when the cheque was presented for encashment before the Bank, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds insufficient”. So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the O.Ps, praying for directing to refund Rs.11000/- paid towards advance for wardrobe along with interest on the said sum @10% , to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and mental agony & to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
Complainant has filed with the complaint, copy of the agreement, the work schedule, a letter issued by the O.Ps dated 20.5.2017 whereby they issued the cheque of Rs.40,000/- , an agreement dated 21.7.2017 entered into between the parties, a copy of complaint dated 19.7.2017 made before the O.C, Jadavpur P.S by the complainant, copy of the cheque of Rs.40,000/- and bank memo slip whereby the cheque was dishonoured on the ground “Fund insufficient”. The complainant has also filed certain photographs.
The O.Ps have contested the case by filing written version ,denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint ,contending inter alia that the O.Ps completed the work and the complainant all along was happy with the work. It is the specific case of the O.Ps that the complainant paid Rs.1,94,000/- through instalments . But the complainant did not pay the cost of the extra work done by the O.Ps which is still due and complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.45000/- to the O.Ps. The present case has been filed by the complainant only with ulterior motive to extort money from the O.Ps. Thus, the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2 :
Both the points are taken-up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
It is the claim of the complainant that by 2 agreements dated 6.7.2016 and 28.8.2016 O.Ps agreed to do the work of modular kitchen and the interior works in the flat including wardrobe. On perusal of the record, it appears that though O.Ps have admitted about the only agreement dated 6.7.2016 but they have not denied and disputed that the agreement was with respect of making modular kitchen and also for doing other interior works in the flat of the complainant. O.Ps have also not disputed and denied that a total sum of Rs.1,94,000/- has been paid by the complainant. It is the claim of the complainant that despite repeated deadlines the O.Ps have failed to complete the work . Moreover, the work done by the O.Ps suffers from the defects and they have used cheap materials.
Though the O.Ps have contended that complainant is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.45000/- towards the extra work done by them, but in support of such claim, before this Commission, absolutely no document is forthcoming. On the contrary, in support of his claim complainant has filed the document which is dated 20.5.2017 which is executed by the O.Ps being partners of the Virtue Interior , wherefrom it appears that they issued a cheque being no.000137 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- dated 20.7.2017 as security with an undertaking that they would finish the remaining pending job and on completion of the said pending job the complainant would return the said cheque immediately. It is specifically mentioned in the said letter that wardrobe is not included in the pending job. In another document which is an agreement dated 21.7.2017 entered into between the parties duly signed by the O.Ps indicates that O.Ps have categorically admitted and has stated in details the pending works to be done by them. It is stated therein that pending works should be starting from 24.7.2017 and it should be completed by 12.8.2017. In paragraph 5 of the said agreement dated 21.7.2017 there is a clear recital that the O.Ps shall refund Rs.11000/- to the complainant on completion of the pending works mentioned in the said agreement. The said Rs.11000/- was paid by the complainant as an advance payment for the wardrobe work which was cancelled. So, these 2 documents clearly establishes the claim of the complainant that inspite of the deadlines the job was not done by the O.Ps and the said pending work which has been stated in details in the agreement dated 21.7.2017 has not been completed.
It may be pertinent to point out that O.Ps have not filed a single document before this Commission that they have completed the said pending work in compliance of the agreement dated 21.7.2017. If that be so, then the complainant is entitled to the refund of sum of Rs.11000/-.
On a careful scrutiny of the complaint filed by the complainant, it appears that complainant has only prayed for refund of Rs.11000/- paid towards the wardrobe along with interest and for compensation together with litigation cost. It appears from the materials on record , specially the cheque and the bank cash memo slip that the cheque of Rs.40,000/- which was issued by the O.Ps as security for completing the pending job was dishonoured on the ground of “Fund insufficient”. However, as already highlighted above, the complainant has only prayed for payment of excess amount paid i.e Rs.11000/- and compensation. In the given situation of this case, specially the 2 documents dated 20.5.2017 and 21.7.2017 , there remains no doubt that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and thus, the complainant is also entitled to the compensation for harassment. An amount of Rs.35,000/- would be justified as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Hence,
ORDERED
That C.C no. 241 of 2018 is allowed on contest.
The O.Ps are directed jointly & severally to pay Rs.11000/- to the complainant and compensation of Rs.35,000/- within 2 (two) months from this date.
They are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 2 (two) months , in default of making payment, the entire sum shall carry interest @9% p.a till realisation.
