Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by (1) Smt. Reeta Mukherjee, wife of Sri Arindom Mukherjee, (2) Sri Arindom Mukherjee, son of Shri Bimal Chandra Mukherjee, both are resident of Flat No.3E, Block-B, MAP MUSKAN RESIDENCY, 3, Prince Baktiar Shah Road, P.S.-Charu Market, Kolkta-700033 (erstwhile resident of Flat No.7, 539, M.G.Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082 against M/s Schematic, 9, India Exchange Place, Room No.6, Kolkata-700 001, OP No.1, Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, OP No.2, Mr. Rajarshi Mazumder, partners of M/s Schematic, , OP No.3, both are addressed at 9, India Exchange Place, Room No.6, Kolkata-700 001, and also at 184/2, Roy Bahadur Road, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-34, Mr. Subrata Roy, Merujaan Housing Complex, Flat No.C/340, P.O.-Narendrapur, Kolkata-700 103 OP No.4 praying for refund of Rs.5,76,085/- for non-completion of work as agreed and diversification of fund out of total amount ofRs.9,19,000/- and for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a flat in the name of Complainant No.1 and her son, situated at 3, Prince Baktiar Saha Road, P.S.-Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033, measuring 1360 sq.ft. for their own residential accommodation. One Subimal Das, Sale Manager of M/s Somany Realtors Pvt. Ltd. facilitated the Complainants to purchase the flat. After purchase of the flat, for the purpose of interior decoration, Complainants approached Subimal Das for a suitable interior designer and Mr. Das referred to Sourav Chakraborty one of the partner of the OP who is running business as interior decorator and designer. Accordingly, as per the telephonic conversation negotiations took place between the Complainant and the OPs and interior work was agreed to be done for a cost of Rs.7,50,000/-. Thereafter OP sent further revised quotation for Rs.10,97,740/-. On mutual discussions the Complainants finally agreed with the modified quotation subject to completion of the entire work by 11.9.2016 and the OPs agreed to such stipulation. Both the parties, the Complainants and the OPs agreed to begin the work on 6/5/2016 and to complete the work within estimated 130 days i.e. by September,2016. Keeping it in mind that son, daughter, son-in-law and grand-daughter of the Complainants scheduled to arrive on 15.11.2016 from Sanfransisco to Kolkata who are to live in the newly purchased flat since the existing rented accommodation is not at all suitable for accommodation of all the family members. Thereafter the OPs did not complete the work between the schedule time, Complainant hired services of the OPs firm upon payment of valuable consideration. Sometimes in the month of May, 2016 the OP sent a residential interior design agreement specifying specified job, specific services, payment term etc. to the Complainant but failed and neglected to execute the said agreement. OPs have also e-mailed communication on diverse dates together with photos of proposed works on completion etc. Out of total agreement amount ofRs.10,99,668/- the Complainant paid Rs.9,91,000/- after borrowing fund. In the meantime the husband of the Complainant No.1 suddenly met a heart attack on 18.7.2016 and underwent open heart bye-pass surgery at the Fortis Hospital wherefrom he was discharged on 25.7.206. Complainant No.1 was compelled to monitor work on the basis of their time to time having done discussion. Many meetings took place. After the last payment was made to the OP on 18.10.2016, Complainants visited the flats sometimes during the last week of October, 2016 and were shocked and surprised to observe that no one was working and on enquiry it was learnt from the neighbours that works had been stopped since long, which was never estimated by the OP. Subsequently, on regular persuasion on 2.11.2016 both the partners of the OPs had a joint physical inspection of the flat and expressed their inability to work. Meanwhile, Complainants engaged one Mr. Subrata Roy as Chartere Engineer and valuer for ascertaining the works so done by the OPs at a remuneration of Rs.10,000/- who submitted his report upon physical verification of the flat and it could be ascertained that OPs did not complete the work and so, Complainant filed this case for realization of Rs.5,76,085/- and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
OP No.4 filed written version. This OP has stated that by profession and Registered Valuer he valued the work done by the other OPs in the flat and submitted the report to the Complainant. and other OPs did not contest the case. Accordingly, the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.1, 2 & 3.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and thereafter argument was heard and so it appears that this case was heard ex-parte against OP No.1, 2 & 3.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for refund ofRs.5,78,085/-. The allegation which Complainant has brought remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. Only OP No.4 has filed written version, who has stated that he is a Civil Engineer who valued the work done in the flat and as per his assessment, the OP No.1, 2 & 3 are liable for the amount which Complainant has prayed. Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to the relief of Rs.5,76,085/-.
Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost which appears to be excessive. However, we are of the view that considering the facts and circumstances, if compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- are awarded the object of justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
CC/544/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP No.1, 2 & 3 and dismissed against OP No.4. OP No.1, 2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs.5,76,085/- within three months of this order, and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
