This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to supply and set up missing designer chairs, to effect repairs as per specification and to pay an amount of Rs 75,000/- as compensation with cost of this proceedings.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are that the opposite party undertook interior renovation work and modification of complainant’s ‘ K.J.Cool Bar “ by placing a quotation and agreeing specifications and terms for Rs <br /> 1,50,000/- The opposite party agreed to complete the work before 1.8.2005. It was stipulated to inaugurate the cool bar on that day. But opposite party delayed the work for 15 days . So the inauguration could be done only on the day 15.8.2005.There is no reason for this delay. The complainant totally lost his business therein for such 15 days. The opposite party had undertaken to manufacture , provide and set up 20 designer chairs in the ground floor of the cool bar. But the opposite party had set up only 16 design chairs. Which was in a most uncomfortable manner as the customers found it difficult to use them properly. It is totally against specification in the said quotation. One of the tables is broken. The front side glass door constructed and fitted by the opposite party is not able to be opened or closed ever since it was so fitted. The cash counter was not properly built.. It is seriously defective and most uncomfortable which causes suffocation. The entire chairs and tables are arranging and set up in a most suffocative and uncomfortable manner. The opposite party has no proper explan ation for the above said deficiency, defects and defaults. The complainant paid Rs 1,50,000/- as agreed upon. First two instalments were through cheques of Rs 50,000/- each. Rs 40,000 was paid in cash at the fag end of the work. The last payment was Rs 10,000 in cash. At the time of the last payment complainant pointed out the defects and the opposite party readily agreed to cure all the said defects and to provide missing 4 chairs. The complainant paid the entire amount believing the words of opposite party. But opposite party did not provide the missing chairs and rectified the defects in his work. In the meanwhile the opposite party caused to be issued a lawyer notice dated 20.09.2005 to the complainant demanding Rs 50000/- on the ground that the complainant had paid only Rs 1,00,000/- out of Rs 1,50,000/- agreed to pay. It was totally a false allegation. It was only a cunning trick to tackle the expected legal action of the complainant. Reply notice sent explaining the real facts. The complainant lost business from 1.8.2005 to 15.8.2005 due to the delay of completion of work. Missing of 4chairs caused further loss of Rs 300/- each per day. Lack of comfort and suffocation being faced by the customers and employees caused much loss . The complainant has suffered severe mental pain. The complainant estimated a sum of Rs 75000/-as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant. The opposite party has not responded the demands of complainant and hence this complaint.<br /> Notice sent to opposite party was returned unclaimed and taken as sufficient service. The opposite party called absent and set exparte.<br /> The main points to be decided is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and whether complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint<br /> The evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Exts. A1 to A5 , Ext.C1 and Ext.X1.<br /> The commissioner appointed in this complaint inspected the spot after giving notice to both parties Though opposite party did not turn up before the Forum the report of the Commissioner reveals the facts that opposite party was aware of the complaint as well as the commissioner’s inspection. The non appearance of opposite party has to be considered as a purposeful act on the part of the opposite party. The commissioner has produced Ext. X1 certificate of posting which ascertained that notice was served to opposite party. The commissioner in his report stated that there are 4 tables and 16 chairs in the cool bar. Table was made with granite piece within iron frame, having 95 cm length and 55 cm width. Finishing work was not done neatly. Chair was made by bending the iron pipe. The commissioner has noted that sitting arrangement has not been done properly. Ext. C1 states “<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This shows that the consumers will not feel sitting comfortable on the chair. The finishing work of granite work is also not completed. It is not a difficult work. But if it is not done that will create uneasiness for consumers and there is possibility of tearing dress. Comfortable sitting arrangements is the first and foremost requirement necessary for a cool bar for the better attraction of consumers. While going through the report Ext. C1 it can be seen that fittings of cash counter is also been not built properly. The commissioner states “<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This also makes it clear that finishing work seriously affected the get up of cash counter , which is very important in forming impression and attraction of consumers. Going through the evidence of Commisioner it can be seen that the finishing work done by the opposite party is below standard, defective and less attractive. The chief affidavit says the person sitting in the cash counte suffers suffocation and it is not in accordance with the specification. The commission report Ext. C1 and available other evidences undoubtedly proves that the interior works of renovation and modification undertaken by opposite party has not been performed in a satisfactory manner. There is clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party.<br /> The complainant stated in his chief affidavit that he had paid the agreed amount of Rs 1,50,000/- Ext. A1 shows that the opposite party received Rs 50,000/- by cheque bearing No.211024 dated 30.6.2005. Ext. A2 revealed that opposite party has received Rs 10000/- on 19.8.2005. The signature that is seen in Ext. A1 is similar to that of Ext. A2 receipt. These Ext. A2 proves the payment of Rs 10,000/-. Ext. A3 is the legal notice sent on behalf of opposite party wherein he has admitted that the complainant has paid Rs 1,00,000/- through 2 cheques of Rs 50,000/- each. Thus it can be considered that payment of Rs 1 lakh is proved by Ext. A3. The complainant has also stated that he has paid Rs 40,000/- at the fag end of the work. But no receipt seen produced. In the absence of documents, this payment of Rs 40,000/- cannot be taken as true. Thus it can only be considered that there was a payment of Rs 1,10,000/- to opposite party. The evidence available on record proves gross negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Taking into account the gravity of negligence as a whole, we are of opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- as compensation to complainant with a cost of Rs 250/-. Thus opposite party is held liable to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs 250/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Quotation dt. 27.6.2005 issued by the opposite party<br /> A2. Receipt dt. 19.8.2005 issued by the opposite party<br /> A3. Lawyer notice dt. 20.9.2005 sent by the opposite party.<br /> A4. Reply lawyer notice dt. 28.9.2005 sent to the opposite party<br /> A5.Acknowledgement .<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party –NIL<br /> Exhibits for the court<br /> X1. Certificate of posting sent to the opposite party<br /> C1. Commision report submitted by Adv. Pramod dt. 8.4.2008<br /> Witnesses examined on either side- NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br />