This case is coming for final hearing on 10.04.2015 in the presence of Sri T.N.V.Krishna Rao Complainant appear in person and of Sri N.Kalidas Reddy Advocate for Opposite Party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of House Flat No.S-2 bearing Door No.39-13-17, Harsha Enclave, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam and at the inducement and vide publicity made by the opposite party the complainant with a view to make the kitchen room in decent manner by fixing Godrej Modular with Wooden shutters, steel body, galvanized, epoxy power coated comprising of main floor units approached the opposite party on 11.03.2013 and after negotiations, the complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement.  As per the said agreement, the opposite party agreed to fix the main floor units and top units in the kitchen room of complainant for Godrej Modular Kitchen with Wooden Shutters and raised invoice for a sum of Rs.1,02,572/- and the time fixed by the opposite party is 45 days from the date of agreement for which the complainant agreed and also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in advance by way of cheque No.676752 on 13.03.2013 in favour of the opposite party and the opposite party also issued receipt No.1 dated 13.03.2013 and the said cheque was encashed by the opposite party.  Subsequently, the opposite party did not commence the work inspite of several requests made by the complainant and postponing the same on one pretext or other.  After the receipt of balance amount of Rs.52,572/- on 11.06.2013 by way of cheque bearing No.676753 dated 08.06.2013 under receipt NO.27 dated 06.06.2013 the opposite party commenced the work and fix the units in part and also assured the complainant that he will complete the remaining works within a day or two.  But the opposite party with great difficulty fixed four units in part, in the month of September, 2013 and since then, the opposite party did not complete the balance work and moreover, used to give evasive replies and threatening the complainant with dire consequences and also abused him in a filthy language and insulted the complainant before the other customers and staff.  Thus,  the opposite party put the complainant to suffer both mentally, physically and financially also which clearly shows deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant stated that on account of deficiency of service and incomplete work of opposite party, the look of design in kitchen room spoiled and on account of illegal and high handed acts of the opposite party, the complainant lost his reputation, image and respect and suffered with great mental agony, hence this complaint to direct the opposite party;

a)      To complete the work as per the agreement dated 11.03.2013 or refund the sum of Rs.1,02,572/- with interest at 18% interest from the date of payment.

b)      to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for gross deficiency of service caused by the opposite parties.

c)       to pay Rs.10,000/- towards expenses and litigation charges.

2.       On the otherhand, the opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the opposite party is doing business in supply of Godrej Kitchen Wear Units in Visakhapatnam and for that M/s Godrej Company appointed the opposite party as authorized dealer and the complainant voluntarily came to the show room of the opposite party and placed order for fixing of the items in the kitchen room of the complainant and then, the opposite party went to the flat of the complainant and took the measurements.  After taking measurements the opposite party has sent the same to its manufacturer i.e., Godrej Company for supply of the kitchen units, they will send the same to the opposite party, wherever those ordered items are not ready.  There is no agreement of 45 days for supply of units as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite party stated that after receipt of the items from its manufacturer he went to the Flat of the complainant and requested to hand over the site for fixing the units in the kitchen but at that time, construction work is going on and then, the complainant failed to handover the full site to the opposite party and opposite party kept those items in his show room till completion of construction, thus the opposite party fixed the units in the month of September and the complainant requested the opposite party to fix the remaining units.  Accordingly, the opposite party fixed the remaining units, then, the complainant again requested the opposite party to change one unit and then, the opposite party informed him that it will take further time to supply the requested units which was not as per the order by the complainant at the time of contract, for that the complainant agreed, hence there is no question of postponement of work because, the complainant failed to handover the site for fixing the ordered items. 

3.       The opposite party stated that no prudent business man abuses or threatening any of its customer because if he did the same, he will lose business and reputation in the market.  The kitchen units are not readily available items and the opposite party fixed the units as agreed by him, but the complainant filed this complaint with unlawful gain because the complainant requested the opposite party to change the item which was not agreed by the opposite party.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount and it fixed all the units and other items as per the order.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed. 

4.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit  and written arguments along with documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A6.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed its counter, evidence affidavit and written arguments.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.  Heard both the counsels, who reiterated their versions.

5.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

6.       The fact that Ex.A1 is agreement cum proforma invoice for Godrej Modular Kitchen with Wooden Shutters dated 11.03.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,02,572/- is not in dispute.  Ex.A2 is the receipts issued by the opposite party to complainant on 13.03.2013 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Ex.A3 is the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 06.06.2013 for an amount of Rs.52,572/- is also not in dispute.  Ex.A4 is the tax invoice dated 11.06.2013 wherein, the name of the items were mentioned.  Ex.A5 is the delivery challan dated 11.06.2013 contains two pages and also mentioned the name of the items and quantity.  Ex.A6 filed by the complainant which was issued by the opposite party on 07.02.2014 i.e., delivery challan DC.No.84 to the complainant which was filed along with evidence affidavit of complainant on 04.09.2014. 

7.       The contention of the complainant is that on 13.03.2013 and on 06.06.2013 he paid in total Rs.1,02,572/- as per Exhibits A2 & A3 to fix Godrej Modular Kitchen Items in his house and the opposite party fixed time for fixation of modular kitchen as 45 days, then, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 13.03.2013 by way of a cheque, but the opposite party failed to fix fixtures and again on 11.06.2013 the complainant paid Rs.52,572/-, then, the opposite party commenced work and fixed the units in part, but failed to complete the remaining works and more over postponing the issue and finally on 07.02.2014 the opposite party completed the total work of modular kitchen, that too after filing the complaint, the opposite party came forward to settle the issue.  The complainant’s counsel in his arguments, he reiterated that because of the opposite party, the complainant suffered mentally and financially.  Hence, he is entitled for compensation, damages and costs.

8.       The version of the opposite party is that it is true to say that, to fix modular kitchen in to the complainant’s house raised invoice for a sum of Rs.1,02,572/-, but there is no time limit of 45 days as alleged by the complainant and after the manufacturer fixed the units in the month of September, 2013 and after that the complainant requested the opposite party to change one unit and because of that, the delay occurred.  Here, it is to be noted that no document was filed by the opposite party, regarding not handing over the site for fixing the kitchen units in the kitchen as the construction work is going on by the complainant and also there is no evidence regarding the request made by the complainant to change one unit.  Whatever, it may be the complainant paid total amount as on 06.06.2013, but the opposite party take nearly 8 months time to finish the work.  Even though, there is no agreement of 45 days for supply of items and fixing the modular kitchen, there is no doubt that there is abnormal delay of 8 months for fixing the modular kitchen that too, it is to be noted that the complaint filed by the complainant on 28.01.2014 and after filing the complaint only, the opposite party came forward to finish the balance work on modular kitchen, which is evidenced by Ex.A6.  Hence, in our view, even though, there is no time limit was fixed by the opposite party, taking, 8 months time to fix the units comes under deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  If really there is delay by the complainant himself regarding handing over of the site for fixing the units, the opposite party has to endorse the same in any one of the documents which were issued by them.  Taking 8 months time to complete the modular kitchen work that too after receiving the summons from Forum, the opposite party completed it and thus causes mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant is believable.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,000/- which would be just and proper.  As already the opposite party complete the work as per the versions mentioned by the counsel of the complainant at the time of arguments hence, the 1^st relief claimed by the complainant is not taken into consideration.

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant.  Time for compliance 30(Thirty) days. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of April, 2015.

Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

Member                                                                      President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

    Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//