*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Advocate Amit Agashe for the Complainant
Advocate Harshada Pore-Kapatkar for the Opponent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date- 25th April, 2014
This complaint is filed by consumer against Interior Decorator for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is a senior citizen and resident of Range Hills Road, Pune 411 020. Opponent is dealing in the business of interior decorator. Complainant is residing in the flat. He was intending to renovate his flat particularly with respect to the renovation of bookshelf, furniture, waterproofing of the bedroom floor, new pinewood bed and mattress, headboard for bed, new electrification and painting work, electric points, colouring and various other items. Hence, he has engaged Opponent for doing the work of interior decoration. The quotation of Rs.3,02,400/- was given by the Opponent on 21/04/2012. As per the terms and conditions of the said quotation, the Opponent promised to complete the work on or before 21/06/2012 i.e. within two months. Complainant was satisfied with the various representations given by the Opponent. Hence, he has decided to allot the work to him and accordingly aid Rs.50,000/- in advance by cheque. As Opponent had promised for the completion of work on or before 21/06/2012, he requested the complainant to shift in order to facilitate the early completion of the work. Hence, complainant has shifted himself in rented premises by paying rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Complainant has made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 4/5/2012, Rs.1,00,000/- on 18/5/2012. As such, by the mid of May 2012, complainant had made entire payment as per the quotation. 5% amount was retained by him so as to verify the work of Opponent after completion. When complainant had visited the premises on 25/5/2012, he was shocked to learn that very small portion of the total work was completed. The workmen who were employed by the Opponent were not skilled and were very few in number. The work was extremely slow. Opponent has suggested certain additional items and revised quotation upto Rs.4,54,800/-, which was exorbitant. Despite the payment of additional amount, Opponent has not completed the work as per the terms and conditions. Complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 3/6/2012. Then again Opponent has started to demand additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. On 7/7/2012 complainant inspected the flat premises and was disappointed with the workmanship in the work carried out by the Opponent. Opponent has not fitted the commode of standard company i.e. Hindware but Opponent has used counterfeit material bearing logo Hinaware. That was also not properly done. The wooden look decorative linoleum flooring which was to be fitted and levelled was not done properly, and same was making noise. Complainant found various defects and deficiencies such as laminate sheet, wall papers etc. It is the case of the Complainant that Opponent has charged excessive amount of Rs.2,22,655/-. Complainant had obtained Valuation Report from another interior decorator which shows that the Opponent has claimed that much amount in excess. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint and prayed for Rs.2,22,655/- towards over billing. He has further asked for Rs.20,000/- as compensation for delay caused in completion of the work and compensation for defects in the material to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. He has asked Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards costs and expenses.
[2] Opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is flatly denied that that Opponent has charged excess bill as alleged. It is further denied that the Opponent has used counterfeit material and low quality wall papers. It is further denied that the Opponent has not completed the work in time as per the terms and conditions. It is alleged by the Opponent that amount of Rs.32,000/- is due from the complainant. Complainant himself has agreed for the charges which were quoted in the quotation. Due to the additional work, the delay was caused. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, affidavits, pleading of both parties and hearing the argument of both counsel following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has established that the Opponent has caused deficiency in service by using counterfeit material and low standard wall papers ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether complainant has established that the Opponent has charged excessive amount ? | In the negative |
3 | Whether complainant is entitled for compensation on the ground of delay in completion of the work ? | In the affirmative |
4 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 4-
[4] The admitted facts in the present complaint are that the complainant had engaged Opponent has interior decorator for renovation of his flat. It is also not in much dispute that the terms and conditions between the parties were settled. Both have signed the agreement. In this circumstances, it cannot be alleged against the Opponent that it has charged in excess than the quotation. It is also not in much dispute that the complainant has suggested certain additional work and for that the additional amount was required. Once complainant had agreed the rates of the Opponent, now he cannot hesitate from paying the charges which were agreed by the parties. It is the case of the complainant that the rates of the Opponent were very high and there was over billing on behalf of the Opponent. In order to establish this fact, complainant has obtained the Evaluation of the work which was done by the Opponent from another Interior Decorator Company i.e. Bonito Surfaces. The Report of the said company is produced on record. But that company cannot be considered, as the rates of various interior decorators may vary as per their standard of work, quality of material used etc. In the present case, as both had agreed on the rates which were mentioned in the quotation, then complainant cannot plead that there is over billing by the Opponent.
[5] It is the case of the complainant that Opponent has used counterfeit material and deceived the complainant. According to the complainant it was agreed between the parties that the Opponent should install commode of Hindware Company but the Opponent had installed the counterfeit material of Hinaware company. In order to establish this fact, complainant had produced photographs and it is crystal clear from the same that, the Opponent has used counterfeit material. It further reveals from the photographs which are produced by the complainant as regards the wallpapers which are used by the Opponent, these are not also of standard quality and these wallpapers are not fitted properly. In that context, it is argued on behalf of the Opponent that, as the building is very old and due to seepage and leakage, wallpapers were not properly fitted. But as the Interior Decorator is an expert in the said field, he must be knowing about the said work. It reveals from the record that, the work as regards fitting of wallpapers is defective one. It is the opinion of this Forum that, the complainant is entitled for compensation with respect to the defective material used as well as for deficiency in service as regards wallpapers to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
[6] Complainant has asked compensation on the ground of rent paid by him as he had required to stay in rented premises for one month. He has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has paid rent of Rs.20,000/- to the landlord. After considering the present economy, it is the opinion of this Forum that, amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on the ground of rent would meet the ends of justice. Complainant has asked compensation for mental agony, physical sufferings and deficiency in service to the tune of Rs.75,000/-, that is an exorbitant amount. It is the opinion of this Forum that, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- as compensation on that ground and he is also entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation. Opponent has claimed Rs.32,000/- which were due from the complainant. But as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, only consumer is entitled to get the relief from the service provider. There is no provision of counter claim or set off in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, claim of the Opponent is rejected.
In the result, this Forum answer points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponent has caused deficiency in service by providing substandard quality material to the complainant.
3. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] to the complainant towards defective material and deficiency in service within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to the complainant towards costs of litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
6. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
