Date of filing:14.09.2022
Date of Disposal:10.01.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.182/2022
PRESENT:
-
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR:MEMBER
Mr. Ranjit Rajiv Chimote
Aged about 42 years
S/o Mr. Rajiv Vinayakrao Chimote…COMPLAINANT No.1
Mrs. Hemangi Ranjit Chimote
Aged about 39 years
W/o Mr. Ranjit Rajiv Chimote …COMPLAINANT No.2
Both are residing at-
Flat No.F 4C, 3rd Floor
Klassik Nest Apartment
-
HSR Layout, Sector-2
Bangalore 560 102.
(Sri Sudhindra Bhat Adv. For Complainants)
M/s IIWA Properties & Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
No. 1722, Ground Floor
-
HSR Layout,
(Opposite party: Absent)
*****
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER
The present complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.4,75,415/- out of total amount paid of Rs.6,69,500/- after deducting the amount of Rs.1,94,085/- based on the valuation done by the authorized valuer on the completed work. Further to direct the Opposite party to pay the damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony to the complainants and direction to pay the legal expenses of Rs.50,000/- and such other reliefs as this commission may feel fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Brief facts of the complaint is that the Opposite Party is a company involved in interior works at Bangalore. The complainants have given the contract to the Opposite Party for renovation and interior work for the 2 BHK apartment in Bangalore.
3. The complainants had the discussion with the Opposite Party about the interior works in the month of April 2022 and received the interior details and quotation amount of Rs.10,68,390/- for the work from the Opposite Party. The complainants have negotiated the amount to Rs.10,30,000/-. The Opposite Party agreed the same and their complainants have finalized the interior work in the month of May 2022.
4. To book the work with the Opposite Party the complainant No.1 on 08.05.2022 has transferred Rs.1,000/- plus Rs.50,000/-. Again on 09.05.2022 the complainant No.1 transferred another amount of Rs.49,000/- to the OP.
5. Further the complainant submits that one Miss.Pavithra relationship manager of Opposite Party has created a whatsapp group with complainants to discuss the design and other work related things. The Opposite Party has demanded further that the complainants have to pay 65% of the total amount. Therefore, the complainant No.1again transferred an amount of Rs.5,69,500/- on 28.05.2022.
6. Further this being the fact even after receiving the payment, the work has not been started on time and the Opposite Party authorized person Miss Pavithra have not given the details of the Vendor of tiles and did not assign any interior designer to help them in chosing the right combination of tiles. The complainants made several calls, whatsapp messages to the Opposite Party to finalize the interior work. But the complainant did not facilitate any response. The complainant immediately requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid.
7. Further in the month of July when the tiles arrived to the site, the Opposite Party could have completed the tiles removal and plumbing work as assigned but the Opposite Party did not show any interest to start the work.
8. Further the complainant submits that to the shock and surprise of the complainants the Opposite Party asked the complainants to do the plumbing work directly by paying to the Vendor by themselves. The complainant told the Opposite Party that the plumbing work expenses i.e. Rs.24,000/- was also included in the job contract with the Opposite Party. But the confusion arose when Miss Pavithra messaged personally to the complainant No.2 that they will keep amount of Rs.24,000/- as it is in the quotation. The plumbing work which the complainant completed by themselves for Opposite Party was Rs.11,700/-.
9. Further the complainants submits that even after repeated requests over the phone call messages etc. to the Opposite Party did not give any proper reply instead of it the Opposite Party had stopped working on the assigned interior work of the complainants. The complainants further submit that they done the valuation of the work done by the Opposite Party till 27.08.2022 with the help of Government Authorized Valuer. The said valuer had given the valuation report dated 27.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.1,94,085/- only for the work done by the Opposite party.
10. On 03.09.2022 the complainant sent an email to Opposite Party regarding the problem they were facing and demanded for the refund of the amount paid.
11. Further the complainants submit that they have left with no other alternatives approached this Commission for the redressal of their grievances for the deficiency of services and unfair trade practices of Opposite Party. Hence this complaint.
12. The notice of this complaint was duly served upon the Opposite Party. Opposite Party remained absent and placed exparte.
13. The counsel for the complainants (PW-1) filed an affidavit in the form of their evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 marked.
14. The counsel for the complainant had filed detailed written arguments.
16. On the basis of the pleading and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the Opposite party practiced unfair trade practices?
ii) Whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the complaint?
iv) What order?
17. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 & 2 : In affirmative.
Point No.3 : In affirmative.
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
18. To avoid the repetition of the facts we have discussed Point No.1 and 2 together. PW-1 had reiterated the facts of the complaint. On perusal of Ex.P1 to P8, it is evident that the complainant had assigned their apartment’s interior work contract to the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.10,30,000/- dated 08.05.2022 i.e. Ex.P4. Accordingly, the complainants made the payment of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.50,000/- on 08.05.2022. Again Rs.49,000/- on 09.05.2022 and one more transaction of Rs.5,69,500/- on 28.05.2022. To substantiate these payments mentioned above the complainants produced and marked Ex. P5. Even after the payment, the Opposite Party had not started the work on right time, not assigned interior designer, not provided work materials and also not provided workers. The complainant was made to do the plumbing work by paying Rs.11,700/- themselves which was included in the quotation and the amount charged was of Rs.24,000/- and also not provided the Vendors details, delayed the work as the complainants already informed the Opposite Party that they want to move to the new house by September 2022. This being the fact the complainants made several requests to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not respond properly. Even they have not participated in the proceedings of the present complaint. All these acts of the Opposite Party shows their deficiency of service and also followed the unfair trade practice, within the meaning of Section 2(11) and 2(47) of Consumer Protection Act. Hence we answer Point no.1 and 2 in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:
19. The complainants made a prayer for the refund of the amount of Rs.4,75,415/-, out of the amount paid Rs.6,69,500/-, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,94,085/-, based on the valuation done by the Govt. Authorized Valuer on the completed work. The Opposite Party have not responded properly to the complainant when approached and not even participated in this present complaint to put their case. The complainants themselves done the valuation of the work done by the Opposite Party by the Government Authorized valuer on 27.08.2022, the same is also produced and marked as Ex. P7. The complainants have made the payment of Rs.6,69,500/- out of contractual amount of Rs.10,30,000/- to the Opposite Party to the interior work of their apartment. To prove the said payment of Rs.6,69,500/- the complainants have produced their bank statements which is marked as Ex. P5. The Opposite parties did not challenge the evidence of the complainants by filing version and evidence. Hence, Inference could be drawn on the assertion made by the complainant and adverse inference could be drawn against Opposite party. The complainants rely on the judgment of Dr. Indrapal Singh & his son Vs. Sri Amar Pratap Singh Sindhu, 2015, District Forum Chandigarh:
“Case Law No.1 Para 8. We are of the opinion that the evidence on record leads to an irresistible conclusion that Opposite party No.1 completed only 50% of the work by 08.01.2014 though he was supposed to complete the work of the complainants by the n and thereafter he discontinued the work of renovation and disappeared. Opposite party No.1 despite having received Rs.1,34,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.1,73,000/- was not only deficient in rendering service but also guilty of harassment and causing mental agony and pain and suffering to the complainants.”
Thus we feel the complainants are entitled for the refund of Rs.4,75,415/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment on 08.05.2022. In addition the complainants are entitled for the damages of Rs.30,000/- for the delay and non-completion of the assigned interior work. Further the complainants are entitle for Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, we answer Point No.3 partly in Affirmative.
20. POINT NO.4:- In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following;
-
The complaint is allowed in part.
The Opposite Party is directed to refund of Rs.4,75,415/- to the complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment on 08.05.2022 till realization.
Further the opposite party is directed to pay the damages of Rs.30,000/- to the complainants and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, if it fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 10th day of January, 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainants side:
- Ranjit Rajiv Chimote, the complainant No.1((PW-1)
has filed his affidavit.
Smt. Hemangi Ranjit Chimote, the complainant No.2(PW-2)
has filed her affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainants side:
1: Copy of the Aadhar cards of complainants.
2: Copy of the LPG connection card.
3: Copy of price quotation issued by the Opposite party.
4: Copy of email conversation.
5: Copy of the statement of account of HDFC bank
6: Copy of whatsapp screen shot.
7: Copy of valuation report.
8: Copy of email conversations.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
RW1: - Nil -
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
- Nil -
(REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
-
