Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

199/2011

S.R.Jayasankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Classic Decords/Classic Kitchen - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Ganesan

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                                     Date of Complaint  : 20.07.2011

                                                                                     Date of Order        :23.07.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,        :       PRESIDENT                     

                      TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                       :        MEMBER II

 

C.C.No. 199 / 2011

THIS  THURSDAY  THE 23^RD     DAY OF JULY  2015

 

S.R. Jayasankar,

E-105, Mantri Synergy,

1/124B Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

(Old Mahabalipuram Road),

Padur, Kelambakkam Post,

Chennai 603 103.                                                       .. Complainant.

 

- Vs- M/s. Classic Decors / Classic Kitchen, Rep. by its Proprietor, D.B. Suresh, Shop No.G8, Door No.50/139, Arihant VTN Presidency, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                                                ..Opposite party.		.. Opposite party.

For the complainant                           :   M/s. Ganesan & another   

For the opposite party               :   Exparte

       Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.4,18,367 to the complainant as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,967/- towards causing huge loss with interest  and also to pay cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, PRESIDENT  

1.    The Case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

       The complainant has stated that the complainant is owner of the flat No.E-105, Mantri Synergy, 1/124B, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Chennai.  Even before taking possession of the said flat from his builder the complainant engaged the opposite party for doing Interior Decorator for the said flat.  The opposite party has raised bill for Rs.55,967/- dated 17.9.2009 and the same has been paid by the complainant on the same day on receipt to that effect given by the opposite party as per document Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. Subsequently on 26.9.2009 as per the demand made by the opposite party the complainant has agreed and paid additional cost of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party as per Ex.A3.  Since the builder of the said flat has not been completed the construction and handed over the flat the opposite party has agreed with the complainant that he had not started his work and assured that he will start the work in the month January 2011. n 29.12.2010 when the complainant  met with the opposite party was informed by the opposite party, the sq.  ft. rate for the said decorative work was increased from Rs.450/- to Rs.960/- in view of the fact they now use only high quality “Anchor brand Gurgen WBR Marine Playwood” and not commercial ply wood anymore”.  According to the same the complainant and the opposite party has fixed the estimation quotation for Rs.5,06,181/- and requested the complainant to pay a additional sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to start the work. The complainant also paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party on 29.12.2010 as evidenced by Ex.A4 & Ex.A5. Though the builder has handed over the flat to the complainant on 28.2.2011 the key for the said flat was also handed over to the opposite party  by the complainant for doing the said decorative work on 1.3.2011 and the same was received by the opposite party giving promise to the complainant  that the work will be completed in the end of March 2011. 

2.     However despite of above said promised and the above said amount were received by the opposite party, the opposite party moved only certain pre fabricated plywood boxes which were laminated inside with gray mica sheet.   However no worker turned up to fix those boxes.  When the complainant contacted the opposite party regarding this, he was bluntly told that unless a further sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid, he will not be in a position to do the work.   Accordingly the complainant has paid Rs.75,000/-  on 6.4.2011 as demanded by the opposite party with a promise to complete the work before 13.4.2011 and the complainant also proposed to shift his family to the flat on 14.4.2011  However the opposite party has not completed the said decorative work of the bed rooms model kitchen as agreed and promised with the complainant, despite of receipt of a total sum of Rs.3,80,967/- the complainant came to know on enquiry the wood works  were in completed decorative work done by the opposite party is of not of the quality agreed by him but the common economic quality goods, as such the opposite party neither completed the decorative work  and not even used the different quality of goods and which caused the complainant unnecessary delay in occupying the flat after vacating his rental premises.

3.     According to the complainant the opposite party though estimated the said work for higher rate for using higher quality of material, the opposite party have not used the same even in the in completed the decorative works but used commercial plywood which value square feet Rs.500/-.  The entire area for the intended work is Rs.317.20 sq. ft.  the approximate value of the actual incomplete  work carried out at the site and also value of plywood and mica materials is Rs.1,08,600/-, the  approximate value of  accessories (soft closure sides and dustbin) supplied is Rs.20,000/- as such the total work so far done and the value of loose plywood materials and value of accessories Rs.1,28,600/- only.  If the said amount is deducted from the total amount received by the opposite party from the complainant i.e. Rs.3,80,967/- the balance amount of Rs.2,52,367/- is amount liable to be returned to the complainant by the opposite party.   Apart from that the attitude of the opposite party in estimating the higher value a promised to use good quality goods but using the lower quality of plywood in the in completed work done by the opposite party is amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, which caused the complainant mental agony and hardship.  As such according to the complainant the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, apart from that the complainant was also delayed in occupying the said flat due to the activity of the opposite party  as such the complainant has faced loss by paying rent for his family is rental premises as Rs.16,000/- which is also the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant.  Apart from that the complainant has spent Rs.50,000/- to complete the in complete work done by the decorative work of the opposite party.  As such the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,967/- to the complainant and also to interest for the same as well as litigation expenses.

4.      Even after receipt of the notice, the opposite party neither appeared nor filed written version, hence, the opposite party was set exparte on  24.11.2011.  The complainant filed proof affidavit.  Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant, Written arguments of complainant  also filed.

5.     Considered the submission made by the complainant counsel and perused the proof affidavit filed by the complainant  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and the commissioner report Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.   The documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 proves that the opposite party has initially on 17.9.2009  and subsequently on 29.12.2010 agreed for doing the decorative work of the two bed rooms in the flat belongs to the complainant which is  estimated for Rs.55,967/- and subsequently on 4.1.2011 the Fresh quotation was given for Rs.5,06,181/- for the decoration of said  two bed rooms, kitchen bottom, top box, kitchen loft box and kitchen accessories.    It is also proved by the complainant through Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A6, and Ex.A7 the opposite party has received a total sum of Rs.3,80,967/- for the said agreed decorative work to be done in the complainant’s flat towards the quotation of Ex.A5.  According to the complainant the opposite party has not completely done the said decorative work as agreed with him and not used the quality brand ply wood, even for the incompleted portion of the decorative work done by the complainant.  The opposite party also  not started the said decorative work in time and not completed the same as agreed by the opposite party with the complainant.  Therefore as stated by the complainant and as mentioned in the commissioner report the value of the portion of the work  i.e. in completed  work of decorative work done by the opposite party is for the value of Rs.1,36,566/- only.  Therefore has stated by the complainant though the opposite party has received a sum of Rs.3,80,967/- towards the said proposed work,  the opposite party  has done the in completed decorative work for the value of Rs.1,36,566/- only deducting  the sum balance come to Rs.2,44,401/-.  The opposite party is liable to return a sum of Rs.2,44,401/- to the complainant.   Despite of notice issued by the complainant under Ex.A8 dated 7.5.2011 the opposite party neither replied nor repaid the amount.   

6.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to return a sum of Rs.2,44,401/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.5.2011 to till the date of payment to the complainant.   Further the attitude of the opposite party not completing the decorative work despite of receipt of entire amount from the complainant and have done a portion of work only using lower quality of plywood or materials which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice which caused to the complainant mental agony and unnecessary delay in occupying the said flat for his family are all acceptable.  

 

7.     There is no contra evidence on the side of the opposite party, since the opposite party has remained  exparte in this proceedings.  

 

8.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as just compensation to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation to the complainant.  Accordingly the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint against the opposite party.

In the result the complaint is party allowed.  The  opposite party is  directed to return a sum of Rs.2,44,401/- (Rupees two lakhs forty four thousand and four hundred and one only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.5.2011 to till the date of payment  to the complainant.

 

          Further the opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)  as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand  only)  as cost of the litigation to the complainant within six  weeks  from the date of receipt of  this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs1,00,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  till the date of realization.       

      Dictated to the Assistant  transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 23^rd   day of  July 2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 17.9.2009      - Copy of  quotation given by the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 17.9.2009      - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 26.9.2009      - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 29.12.2010     - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A5- 4.1.2011        - Copy of revised quotation given by the opposite party.

Ex.A6- 17.1.2011      - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party

Ex.A7- 6.4.2011        - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A8- 7.5.2011        - Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A9- 10.5.2011      - Copy of photographs.

 

Opposite party’s  side documents : -    Nil  (exparte)

Court’s Exhibits:

Ex.C1 -                - Copy of Advocate commissioner report.

Ex.C2-           -                 - Copy of valuation report.

Ex.C3-                  - Photos.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                         PRESIDENT.