Judgment : Dt.26.7.2017
This is a complaint made by Ms. Poonam Sinha, wife of Ritesh Sinha of 381/A/1, Parnashree Labanya Apartments, Behala, P.S.-Parnashree, Kolkata–700 061 against – (1) M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Behala Chowrasta, 11, Biren Roy Road (West), P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008, OP No.1 and (2)M/s Godrej Interior Division, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai, praying for a direction upon the OP to refund the entire amount spent due to be borne by the Complainant on the purchasing of modular kitchen cabinet spent due to non-installation of modular kitchen amounting to Rs.2,50,329/- with interest @ 21% from the date of departure of the Complainant till repayment of the same and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings.
Facts in brief are that the Complainant approached the OP No.1 to install the modular kitchen in the Complainant’s new flat on the 3rd floor lying and situated at 1/1, Parnashree Green (Airport Road) P.S.-Parnashree, in the first week of May, 2011, for which OP charged Rs.400/-. OP No.1inspected the site on 10.5.2011 and took measurement for the same. The order was confirmed on 4.6.2011 by both the parties and a bill was raised for the said work for installation of a modular kitchen cabinet amounting to Rs.120,329/-. Complainant paid booking amount Rs.35,000/- by a cheque bearing No.052976 dt.4.6.11 of HSBC Bank. Thereafter, Complainant paid Rs.85,329/- by another cheque, No.052981 dt.28.9.2011. So, the Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,20,329/- by virtue of two cheques.
After confirmation of the order, OP No.1 approached the Complainant for additional materials like granite tiles, marbles, sinks, etc. as per the kitchen lay out. After getting these, Complainant provided all the additional materials to the OP No.1. The costing of additional materials was Rs.1,30,000/-. Complainant repeatedly called OP No.1 regarding installation of the modular kitchen. Thereafter, OP No.1 & 2 stated that they are unable to complete the work due to their fault. Again Complainant approached on several occasions to OP No.1 and called more than 50 times. But, OP No.1 did not take any action. Complainant on 30.8.2016 sent a letter to the OPs through mail intimating to complete installation. But the OPs did not pay any heed and again on 9.9.2016 Complainant sent a letter through mail requesting to complete installation work. But, since OPs did not complete the work, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint petition. OP No.1 has stated that he is a franchise of OP No.2 and works for installation of modular kitchen supplied by OP No.2. Further, OP has stated that Complainant approached OP No.1 for installation of modular kitchen cabinet and as per the visiting charge Complainant paid the site inspection charge to OP No.1 and a bill was raised. Complainant paid the amount of the bill by two cheques. Further, OP No.1 has stated that his work is only to install cabinet provided by OP No.2. OP No.1 has also stated that he did not commit any mistake. Further, he has stated that the work was completed and there was no further work to be completed. The allegation made by the Complainant is just to harass the OPs. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 & 3 did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against them.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1 filed questionnaire and Complainant replied to that. Similarly, OP No.1 filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP No.1 replied to that.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,50,329/- with interest @ 21% p.a. and also compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the present case, it appears that Complainant approached OP No.1 for installation of modular kitchen of Godrej Company to which OP No.1 charged Rs.400/- for visiting the site and taking measurement. Xerox copy of the said payment is filed which is dt.8.5.2011. Thereafter, it was settled between Complainant and OP No.1 that the modular kitchen would be purchased for a person from the Godrej Co. for a price of Rs.1,20,329/-. It was also settled that some granite marbles and accessories will be in addition. The total cost of the installation of the modular kitchen work comes to be Rs.2,50,329/- which Complainant paid and as prayed OP No.1 installed modular kitchen. But the allegation of the Complainant is that it could not be installed because the person who went for taking measurement took a wrong measurement and so the installation remained pending. Further, allegation of Complainant is that she used to call over phone to the OP No.1 for such installation but they delayed it.
On perusal of the Xerox copy of the receipts filed, it appears that in terms of the settlement between the parties, Complainant paid Rs.2,50,329/- through cheque. Thereafter, Complainant’s husband wrote a letter to the OP No.1 on Sept. 9, 2016 i.e. after a lapse of about five years. There is no explanation as to why the Complainant remained silent for long five years.
It is the allegation of the OP No.1 that kitchen was installed and Complainant used it for over 5 years and after a lapse of five years they intended to take back the amount which they paid for the materials as well as for installation. It is settled law that any complaint with regard to deficiency in services is to be filed within two years of the cause of action. In the present case, since the cause of action took place in 2011, there is no reason as to why the deficiency of services was not pointed out within two years. There is no document to establish that Complainant took any step anywhere that she informed the deficiency of service within the period of limitation. In such, circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint is time barred and so the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Hence,
ordered
CC/462/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.12 and ex-parte against OP No.2 & 3.
