Complaint filed on: 29.09.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 12.04.2018

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1694/2014

DATED THIS THE 12^th APRIL OF 2018

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s Travel Bazaar,

No.158, 9^th Main Road, 3^rd Block,

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011.

Rep by its Directors,

1. Sri.Niranjan Gupta
2. Abhijit Gupta

By Adv. Sri.Ashwin Kumar     

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

M/s Sri Sai Krupa Water Proofing Solutions

No.235, Divya Paradise, 1^st Main,

4^th Cross, Naidu Layout, Arehalli,

Bangalore-560 061.

Rep by its Proprietor,

Sri.C.Sudhakar.

Also at: No.344, 7^th Main, 2^nd Cross,

BSK 1^st Stage, Srinivasanagar,

Bangalore-560 050.

By Adv.Sri.Kantharaja.V

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainants as against the opposite party directing to refund a sum of Rs.2,95,120/- being the bill amount paid by him for water proofing the work undertaken along with interest at 18% p.a. till the date of payment. Further to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh for the hardship and inconvenience caused to him and also such other reliefs for which the complainant is entitled.

          2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainants are that they have placed work order with the opposite party on 16.5.2013 for water proofing work at the residence of Sri.Niranjan Gupta and Sri.Abhijit Gupta situated at No.290/70/1, 38^th Cross, 8^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-70, for carrying out water proofing work for an extent measuring 5387 sq.ft. which is inclusive of terrace, walls and chajja. The rate fixed and approved was Rs.32/- per sq.ft. for the aforementioned area, which was inclusive of all taxes, transportation, lead and lift etc.,

          3.       It is also the case of the complainants that as per the opposite party’s quotation, the guarantee for the workmanship provided by the opposite party was 10 years (17.7.2013 to 16.7.2023) from the date of completion of the water proofing work. As per clause 4 of the work order, the opposite party had also assured to rectify the defects within 3 or 4 days of the complaint, at free of cost, in case of any issues.

          4.       The complainants submit that subsequent to the work order, the opposite party took up the work and executed the same. He was informed that the execution of the work was done by using Dr.Fixit brand chemical/materials and New Coat materials for terrace/roof area while rain coat material was used for external walls. The total cost of water proofing, the entire area as per the work order was Rs.2,95,120/- and the same has been paid by him.

          5.         It is also the case of the complainants that during the latter part of June and early July 2014, they have experienced leakage in the living area and seepage in other areas where water proofing work was done. This fact was intimated to the opposite party by him by way of phone calls and by way of sending e-mails to the opposite party. Though the opposite party promised to rectify the leakage by arranging an inspection from the concerned Dr.Fixit representatives, the opposite party failed to do so. It is stated that when the complainants tried to further contact the opposite party on telephone as well as through e-mails, the opposite party started evading and ignoring the him and made itself solely responsible for all the sufferings that himself and his family have been undergoing. It is also the case of the complainants that due to the lackcity on the part of the opposite party, himself and his family members suffered loss and he has to spend nearly Rs.3,00,000/- for the shabby work done by the opposite party.

          6.       It is also further case of the complainants that once they noticed leakage within a few days of the opposite party taking up, the OP avoided their calls for 2 weeks and when he did answer, he kept saying that he would come and rectify the issue, but would never turn up. After about 2 weeks, he called him from his cell phone as the opposite party did not know his number and questioned as to why he was avoiding to rectify the defects. After this incident, the OP came to the house the next day. He did about 20-30 minutes of work and said that the issue has been fixed and there won’t be any more problems. His words were “100% no problems from now on, there was just a small crack which he has been covered.” But then again after 7-10 days there were issues of water seepage and leakage causing a huge portion of ceiling paint to drop out. The complainants again informed the OP about the seepage for which he refused to help the complainants, having received a huge sum of money towards the shabby work done. The complainants submit that it may not be out of place to mention that the 10 year warranty offered by him is totally useless, since the OP is not capable of fixing the issue. Hence, the complainants have preferred to file the above complaint for compensation for the deficiency in service rendered by him.

          7.       It is also the case of the complainants that the opposite party failed and neglected to provide the required service as per the work order. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party did not attend. Having no other go, they have constrained to issue legal notice to which for the refund of the amount of Rs.2,95,120/- being the bill amount paid by him to the OP with interest at 18% p.a.

          8.       Though the said notice duly served on the opposite party, did not respond to it. Hence, complaint is filed.

          9.       Notice was ordered to issue to the opposite party. Inspite of the said notice, duly served on him, did not appeared, hence, placed exparte.

          10.     The complainants to substantiate their case, the complainant No.1 name called Mr.Niranjan Gupta filed affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-A1 to A10. Close their aside.

          11.     Complainants have filed written arguments.

          12.     The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the complainants prove the deficiency in service on the 

              part of the OP, if so, they are entitled for the relief?

          2) What Order?

          13.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : Affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

          14. POINT NO.1:  In the foregoing paragraphs, we briefly stated that the contents of the complaint. We placed reliance on the available material on record. The complainants in their complaint specifically stated, in respect of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not properly attending the work assigned to him under the work order dt.16.5.2013 marked as Ex-A1. In this context, the opposite party has also given guarantee card which is at Ex-A2. With regard to the work assigned to the opposite party, the opposite party has given the quotation which is at Ex-A3. For completion of the work assigned to the opposite party, the complainant has paid first bill of Rs.2,72,720/- marked as Ex-A4 and an amount of Rs.22,400/- under the bill marked as Ex-A5. The opposite party also issued the guarantee certificate in respect of the work assigned to him which is at Ex-A6.  The contents of these exhibits are not denied as the opposite party did not choosen to appear to oppose the claim of the complainants by filing his version.  Non appearing and non filing the version, amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against him as per the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., V/s Aman Kumar Garg. Non-attending the grievance of the complainants with regard to the work assigned to the OP, the OP did not respond inspite of the legal notice issued to him. Under such circumstances, this Forum has no other go except to consider the grievance of the complainants as stated in his complaint. In this view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

          15.     Now, the questions that cross for our consideration is, to which of the relief the complainants are entitled two. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, wherein the complainants have sought for the refund of the amount paid by him under Ex-A4 and A5 for an amount of Rs.2,72,720/- and Rs.22,400/- respectively, in all Rs.2,95,120/-. This amount is to be payable by the opposite party to the complainants. With regard to the compensation is concerned, in the form of compensation, we fix the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. With regard to the cost of litigation is concerned, we fix Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, we answered this point in the affirmative.

          16.     In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainants is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,95,120/- to the complainants with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of payment, till the date of realization.

          We also direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- being the cost of litigation.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 12^th April 2018).

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Niranjan Gupta, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s