DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.91/20

Veenaa Ramesh

FV 544, Green Community West

Dubai Investment Park Dubai, UAE.                    .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

M/s Kohelika Kohli Architects & Designers Pvt. Ltd.

A Company incorporated under the companies act

Having its present office at

F-213/C, 3^rd Floor

Lado Sarai, Old M.B. Road

New Delhi-110030.

Through its Directors

Ms. Sunita Kohli

F-213, 3^rd Floor

Lado Sarai, Old M.B. Road

New Delhi-110030.

Ms. Kohelika Kohli

F-213, 3^rd Floor

Lado Sarai, Old M.B. Road

New Delhi-110030.

Sunita Kohli & Co.

A Company having its

Present Address At :

F-213, 3^rd Floor

Lado Sarai, Old M.B. Road

New Delhi-110030.                                                        ….Opposite Parties

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution:05.08.2020

Date of Order       :18.05.2023

Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi

1. Complainant has made a request for passing an award directing M/s Kohelika Kohli Architects and Designers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to refund Rs.35 Lakh alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of payment; (ii) to pay compensation amounting Rs.10 Lakh towards mental agony, harassment etc. ; (iii) to pay Rs. 5 Lakh towards the cost of litigation etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

          OP being a well-established brand engaged in manufacture and trade of be-spoke furniture, the complainant approached them to manufacture the customised made furniture according to the specifications for her residential premises.  Believing on the tall claims as well as being impressed by their web-based inducement of their superior work, the complainant agreed to get her furniture designed and manufactured from the OP.  The list of products ordered by her alongwith design, specification and cost estimate is annexed at Annexure-2.

3. The complainant purchased the said furniture for personal use in her residential premises.  The complainant approached OP via e-mail and Skype call in the month of August 2015.  To engage the services and as a confirmation of the same, the complainant paid an initial retainer fees of Rs.2,50,000/- through two transaction, one amounting Rs.1,00,000/-  on 04.08.2015 and another Rs.1,50,000/- on 07.08.2015 to the OP through Sunita Kohli & Co. accounts maintained at HDFC, Defence Colony, New Delhi.  The OP company was established in 2004 and other Company M/s Sunita Kohli & Co. were brought under one umbrella in 2010 under the brand name of K-2 India.
4. The complainant between 23^rd to 25^th Nov. 2015 travelled from Dubai to India especially to visit their studio in Lado Sarai, New Delhi to meet Ms. Kohelika and to see physically some of their furniture produced by the company.  The complainant placed an order for few accessories, decorative items total being in number amounting to Rs.2,75,200/-.  The  amount was paid and some of these items were to be shipped along with furniture.  The complainant again with the prior appointment, visited the office of OP.  But OP, being too busy could not provide time.  However, she met the complainant at the Client’s residence but could not give sufficient time.  All details could not be finalised.  The OP promised to provide option within two weeks but she did not get back to the complainant nor provided details of options.  OP, ultimately, sent options in June 2016 which were to be sent to April, 2016.  The designs were not as per requirement specified.  The designs sent by K2 India are annexed as Annexure-5 (colly).  The complainant visited OP’s premises in New Delhi in Oct. 2016 and designs were finalised.  The complainant was asked to procure imported leather and fabric which costed her around Rs. 3,07,000/- and got delivered to the company during the month of Dec. 2016 and 2^nd  Jan. 2017.  OP asked for an amount of Rs.65,000/- for purchase of fabrics and Rs.2,13,000/- towards purchase of ready accessories etc.  Both amounts were transferred to the account of M/s  Sunita Kohli & Co. 
5. After finalisation of all the details and delivery of materials, it was informed to the complainant in the month of Jan. 2017 that it would approx. take three weeks to upholster and complete the furniture.  The complainant tried to contact Ms. Kohelika Kohli & Ms. Sunidhi several times for completion of the order but got no response.  After continuous follow up, the complainant was contacted where she requested OP to share the pictures of the furniture.  In Oct. 2017 after a lapse of nine months against the stipulated time of three weeks, but no due-date of delivery even till Nov. 2017 was given. In Dec. 2017, the complainant got Whats App Message from Ms. Kohelika Kohli informing that the furniture except for one item is complete and ready for delivery.  Despite the completion of one item there was no revert from OP for the next 3 months.  This highlights the high degree of unprofessionalism by the company.  The complainant was informed on 27.03.2018 that the pending piece would be ready in couple of days and would be receiving pictures of the furniture from Operation Manager, Mr. Mohit Gupta OP asked for final tranche of payment by 31^st March 2018 and also send packers to the warehouse to ship the furniture. The final tranche of the amounting to Rs.9,34,294/- was made in the account of Kohelika Kohli & Architecture & Designers Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03.2018 itself.  At this stage, the complainant asked Ms. Kohelika Kohli specifically whether she checked personally which was confirmed by her stating that the furniture is in consonance with the specifications provided.  After repeated follow up, some pictures were shared with the complainant on 12.04.2018 which were also incomplete and not proper.  The delay of almost 2 years, the Manager operations was still not in position to confirm the completion of furniture of entire furniture.  This inordinate delay, no-sharing of pictures of furniture was not right with the flow of events. To find out truth, the complainant visited warehouse of the Company alongwith operation Manager.  The complainant was shocked to see the furniture which was not in accordance with specification design agreed upon. M/s Kohelika Kohli was not present in the warehouse.  As informed by Operation Manager, she was unavailable.  He promised to brief the Ms. Kohelika about the issues.  However, OP contacted complainant and assured her that after post visit on 06.05.2018, she will visit the ware house to inspect all the furniture and revert to her on priority.  The complainant tried to reach Ms. Kohelika and Mr. Gupta on 08.05.2018 but no response was received.  On 09.05.2018, message was received from Ms. Kohelika about her unwellness and assured to visit on 10.05.2018.  She did not visit  on 10.05.2018 or 11.05.2018.  The complainant got message from Ms. Kohelika informing her that she was unwell and would sort out the issues personally by 14.05.2018.  The complainant had made entire payment and there was no option but kept following ritualistically with all concerned.  A message was received on 26.05.2018, informing her that she had visited and Mr. Gupta shall send a detailed e-mail and the same was received on 01.06.2018.
6. The complainant reverted through an e-mail on 02.06.2018 elaborately pointing out the alterations made in design in juxta- position to the specifications agreed upon as well as deficiency in quality and built up of the furniture.  The complainant in no uncertain terms, conveyed that the quality, built design as well as finesse as agreed upon etc. was missing.  The e-mails of Mr. Mohit & complainant are annexed at Annexure-7 (colly).  The e-mails shared by complainant and Mr. Kohelika are also annexed as Annexure – 8 (colly).
7. The payment details made to Company K-2 India and its sister concern are given below:-

8. The acknowledgment of these payments is annexed at Annexure-10 (colly).  The complainant further states that till date delivery of furniture was not made on 14.09.2018, the husband of the complainant visited India but could not contact Ms. Kohelika to sort out the issues at hand but no response was received from OP.  Therefore, the complainant was forced to take legal action. 
9. A complaint was also lodged in the Police Station.  The complainant also monitored the same through PMO Portal and the matter was also closed prematurely.  Bereft of all options, she filed this complaint.
10. Earlier the complaint was filed in State Commission but on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case was allowed to be filed here in this Forum vide order dated ……..
11. The complainant filed exparte evidence as well as written arguments.  The counsel for OP appeared on 18.11.2021 and copy of the complaint was provided by the counsel for complainant and no reply was filed within stipulated period.  On 29.08.2022, in the continuous absence, the right to file written statement was closed on 20.05.2022 and the OP was also proceeded exparte.
12. This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues raised by the complainant.  The OP remained absent except one appearance.  Ultimately, OP was proceeded Exparte and right to file the written statement was also closed.  Therefore, no version on behalf of OP is available.  After examination of the entire evidences, it comes out clearly that OP had not delivered the promises agreed upon. The complainant with the help of the following judgments, tried to prove its case:-

1. Deepak Kr. Dadhich Vs. IMS Maharashtra Furniture
2. Muralidharan Vs. Ratna Kumari
3. Dr. Rajender Nirmala Vs. Sharma King Furniture

13. The copies of these judgments are available on record.  The Hon’ble Consumer Fora in the above mentioned cases have proved the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant maintained that the facts of above mentioned cases are parimetria with the facts of the instant case.
14. As stated above, elaborately, the complainant had paid Rs.35 Lakh and given the details of payment made at various stages.  The complainant further maintained that before reaching out to this Commission she tried to find amicable solution. Her husband also flew from Dubai to New Delhi to sort out the issues but Ms. Kohelika Kohli remained incognito.
15. This Commission has no reason to disbelieve that the complainant had suffered huge mental, physical and financial loss on account of delay and inaction of on the part of OP in delivering the furniture.
16. The OP further caused wrongful loss to the complainant in depriving of use of furniture and wrongful gain to themselves by extracting huge money and failure to deliver the furniture.  The OP is short of obligation in unilateral and malafide conduct in not deliverying the furniture as per specification, design and quality of the furniture.  It was also told that the OP has failed to make any refund and no communication with regard to delivery of furniture.

In view of above discussion, facts and circumstances, this Commission is convinced that the OP is entirely responsible for deficiency in services and caused wrongful loss to the complaint and wrongful gain to themselves. The complainant vide its complaint made to DCP, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (copy enclosed at A/11) had stated that payment was made  to the OP to the tune of Rs.31,21,994/-. Hence, OP is directed to make the refund the amount of Rs.31,21,994/- made to them at different stages alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of case in this Commission within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which rate of interest shall be levied @ 8% per annum till its realisation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.