14....20.04.2022...
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is ordered that,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is directed to refund Rs.28,800/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred) with simple interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 22.04.2019 till full realization, within 60 days from the date of this order.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.6,500/- only, which was spent as an additional cost, in the interior decoration of the ceiling within 60 days from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- only towards cost of litigation within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied.
Let a copy of the order be sent free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO._94_ OF 2020
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
14.12.2020 22.12.2020 20.04.2022
Present : President : Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Member : Jagdish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANTS : 1. Sri Kartick Dey, S/o. Sri Joydev Dey,
residing at Duttapara, P.O. – Baruipur, Kolkata, South 24 Parganas, P.S.-Baruipur, Pin – 700 144.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. Sri Mritunjoy Mondal @ Gopi
S/o. Sri Sambhunath Mondal,
Residing at Vill. – Rana (Beliaghata), P.O.-Piyali Town, Dist.- South 24 Parganas, P.S.- Baruipur,
Pin - 743 387
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Sri Kartick Dey (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against Sri Mritunjoy Mondal @ Gopi, Son of Sri Sambhunath Mondal with a claim for a direction to the OP to pay Rs.28,000/- only, received by him for the service with interest @ 18% p.a. and extra expenses of Rs.6,500/- only and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- only.
The Opposite Party Shri Mritunjoy Mondal @ Gopi is an interior Ceiling Design Contractor who provided service to complainant. OP has the business of interior decoration.
Complainant, by filing this case states that, he was desirous of decorating the ceiling of his room. So he approached the opposite party for decorating the ceiling of his room. Complainant, a businessman had entered into an agreement dated 22nd April, 2019, with the opposite party for the decoration of his ceiling.
The OP surveyed the room. After making a complete survey and being fully satisfied he had assured vide agreement dated 22nd April, 2019 that the ceiling of the complainant’s room is ideal for Paris –board-work and it will last at least 12 years and it will cost around Rs.28,800/- only. Complainant believed in glossy representation of the opposite party. Complainant availed of the service of the OP and appoints him to decorate the ceiling of his room.
OP was thereby appointed by complainant and the OP completed the said service within 3 days and complainant had made payment of Rs.28,800/- only in cash to the OP for the said service. OP acknowledged the receipt in the agreement dated 22nd April, 2019.
It is pertinent to mention that complainant had also spent extra amount of Rs.6,500/- only on the said decoration of ceiling, which included paint and electrical work.
On 25.07.2020, just after 1 year and four months of completion of the said decorating service, the decoration of the ceiling collapsed and fell off from ceiling within the guaranteed period of 12 years. Complainant was severely injured. Thus it appears that OP failed to provide service to complainant. It was mentioned in the contract that the said decoration had a guarantee-period. Complainant had to visit the doctor for the injury.
Complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the deficiency in service of the OP. The OP had assured complainant that he would refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.28,800/- only. OP also informed that he would reimburse the extra expenses incurred by complainant, i.e. Rs.6,500/- which was spent for electrical work and paint.
That the cause of action arose on 25.07.2020 when the decoration fell off from the ceiling. Complaint filed is very well within the territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction. The total value of service and compensation assessed is Rs.85,000/- only.
Hence complainant prays for issuing show cause notice upon the OP, directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 28,800/- only as received by the OP in the agreement dated 22th April, 2019 with 18% interest per annum and for refunding extra expenses of Rs.6500/- only and for paying Rs.50,000/- only for humiliation, harassment and mental agony and for paying litigation cost of rs.10,000/- only.
Notice was sent to the OPs on 16.09.2021. Complainant files affidavit of service of notice along with postal track report showing service of notice upon the OP on 17.04.2021. OP did not turn up in spite of expiry of statutory period.
As a result, the case proceeded exparte against the OP. On 14.01.2022, Argument was heard and we proceeded for giving judgment.
Points of Consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
03.Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
- Complainant is a businessman. He wanted to decorate the ceiling of his room. Complainant approached the opposite party. Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 22.04.2019. The area of the ceiling was 360 Sq.ft. OP demanded Rs.80/- per Sq.ft. In total, complainant gave Rs.28,800/- to the OP. OP also did the job. It was mentioned in the contract form that the ceiling would last for 12 years. Complainant was also happy with the words of the OP. In addition to Rs.28,800/- complainant also spent Rs.6,500/- only for paint and electrical work. Altogether complainant spent Rs.28,800/- + Rs.6,500/- =Rs.35,300/-. After payment, the OP finished the work. As complainant paid for the false ceiling, he is a consumer. So the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant Shri Kartick Dey appointed the OP Shri Mritunjoy Mondal for interior decoration of the ceiling of complainant’s room. Altogether complainant paid Rs.35,300/- only but with no result. Complainant got nothing by spending considerable amount. Complainant informed the OP that the decoration of the ceiling made by him, collapsed. OP informed that he would refund the amount. But in spite of several reminders, OP failed to refund the amount of Rs.35,300/- only. Hearing OP’s words, complainant agreed to spend the amount. The decoration was done and it collapsed all on a sudden, for which complainant is not responsible. Complainant was upset seeing the dilapidated condition of the decorated ceiling. It appears that OP neglected his duty. Otherwise it would not collapse. OP failed to provide adequate service to complainant. Hence, OP is guilty of deficiency in service. Due to sudden collapse of the decorated portion, complainant was injured. He had to undergo treatment at Baruipur Hospital. Still OP is not in a position to reimburse the amount of RS.35,300/- only spent by complainant. The OP failed to give compensation for injury and harassment caused to complainant. Complainant was moved by the misrepresentation of the OP that the ceiling would last for 12 years. Complainant spent money on good faith. Complainant spent money with a hope of having a nice ceiling, but the contrary happened. Now OP is unwilling to reimburse. This is nothing but unfair trade practice adopted by complainant. It appears that OP provided such service to complainant knowing fully well that it would not last for long period of time. OP made false representation about the service. Complainant suffered monetary loss. So the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant appointed OP for interior decoration of the ceiling. Complainant was impressed by the OP’s words that the decoration would last for 12 years. It was nothing but a misrepresentation. Believing in the words of the OP, complainant spent Rs.28,800/- + Rs.6,500/- = Rs.35,300/-. In return, complainant faced huge monetary loss. Suddenly the roof collapsed, but the OP is not willing to reimburse the amount spent in the work due to sudden collapse of the decorated portion, complainant was injured. Complainant was forced to undergo such harassment in spite of making full payment of the consideration amount. Complainant was not ready for all these hazards. As OP did not work according to the contract, complainant faced loss. The sudden collapse of the decorated portion of the ceiling was beyond the expectation of complainant. OP harassed complainant. Complainant is still spending time in mental agony. He faced monetary loss and physical injury. So, complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
In the result, complainant succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is directed to refund Rs.28,800/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred) with simple interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f. 22.04.2019 till full realization, within 60 days from the date of this order.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.6,500/- only, which was spent as an additional cost, in the interior decoration of the ceiling within 60 days from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- only towards cost of litigation within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied.
Let a copy of the order be sent free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sangita Paul)
Member
