Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/196/2015

M/s.P.Bhoopalan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.P.Selvaraj - Opp.Party(s)

R.Ravi Sekaran

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint  : 30.03.2015

                                                                 Date of Order         : 15.06.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE 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 – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 196/2015

THIS WEDNESDAY  15^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2016

Mr.P. Bhoopalan,

No.6/10, Kaman Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 24.                                                .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1. Mr. P.Selvaraj, Agnes Furniture Center, No.104, Dennison Road, Nagerkoil, Kaniyakumari 629 001.   2. Mr.K.Robin, Proprietor, King Wood Work, No.33, Distillary Road, Nagarkoil, Kanyakumari Dist.                             .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. R. Ravisekaran.            

For the opposite parties        :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

1.     Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- towards excess payment and also a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards repair charges and also Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony totaling of Rs.2,54,000/-.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 1^st opposite party was set exparte on  22.6.2015  and 2^nd opposite party was set exparte on  3.8.2015.    

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.  

4.     The complainant contended that in order to buildup new construction for his residence at Chennai he placed orders of quality Tea wood frames for making doors, windows, frames and also polishing work with the 1^st opposite party who is a timber merchant.   He estimated at Rs.10,00,000/- including the transport charges and also for fixing the doors windows ventilator etc.   The 2^nd opposite party has been engaged by the 1^st opposite party to carry out the carpentry work namely making the frames, doors, windows ventilator and fixing the same and polishing.   As requested by the 1^st opposite party he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.1.2012 Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.8.2012, Rs.2,00,000/- on 3.3.2012 for Rs.40,000/- on 29.4.2013 totaling of Rs.9,40,000/-.

5.     The complainant contended that the opposite parties have not completed the carpentry work as per schedule and delayed the work and both the opposite parties placed blame on each other.    As per the agreement the 1^st opposite party has to make payment to the 2^nd opposite party as labour charges out of the payment made by the complainant.  Whereas the 1^st opposite party did not make payment to the 2^nd opposite party.    But he requested the complainant to pay the labour charges to the 2^nd opposite party so that the amount will be reimbursed by him believing his words he paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- on various dates towards labour charges to the 2^nd opposite party.   But the carpentry work done by the 2^nd opposite party was not upto the standard,  since the main door and 3 bed room doors, pooja doors could not be locked due to abnormal eyebrow bending, similarly most of the windows frames were also bent giving gap between wall and frames.   When the complainant questioned him the 2^nd opposite party shifted the blame on the 1^st opposite party stating that the tea wood frame supplied by him are not standard quality and hence there was defect.   The 2^nd opposite party also had not tested the quality of the teak wood frames supplied by the 1^st opposite party while making the said doors and windows.   As such both the opposite parties had not discharged their responsibilities and duties due to which the complainant had to undergo mental agony and sleepless nights.  Supplying inferior quality material by the 1^st opposite party shows his negligence and deficiency in service.  Therefore the complainant has filed the above complaint claiming a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- towards excess payment and also a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards repair charges and also Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony totaling of Rs.2,54,000/-.

6.     The facts of the complaint reveals that the complainant had placed orders with the 1^st opposite party  of quality Teak wood frame for making doors, windows, frames and also polishing work with the 1^st opposite party who is a timber merchant for construction of his house at Chennai, for which the 1^st opposite party  estimated a sum of Rs.8,78,000/- which includes the transport charges as well as  making the frames windows ventilator and fixing the same and polishing charges which is evidenced through the legal notice of the complainant sent to the 1^st opposite party i.e. Ex.A2.   But the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- which is also evidenced through the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party i.e. Ex.A1.  The complainant also contended that the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant to pay the labour charges to the 2^nd opposite party who is the carpenter engaged by the 1^st opposite party so that the amount would be reimbursed.  Accordingly in order to complete the work, he paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party as labour charges in which he has also transferred Rs.25,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party which is found from Ex.A4.  

7.     But the grievance of the complainant is that  the 2^nd opposite party  did not complete the work and left unfinished and the carpentry work done by the 2^nd opposite party was not upto the standard.  Since the main door and 3 bed room doors,  pooja doors could not be locked due to abnormal eyebrow pending, most of the window frames were also bent giving gap between wall and frames.  But the 2^nd opposite party thrown the blame on the 1^st opposite party stating that the Teak wood frame was not upto the standard.  Hence he had to engage a Civil engineer to estimate the value of the unfinished work which was estimated at Rs.32,000/- the same is also evidenced through Ex.A5 i.e. the Engineer’s report.  The complainant also sent legal notice to both the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties attributing allegations against them and for reimbursement of the excess payment made to them i.e. Ex.A2 & Ex.A3.   But the opposite parties despite of receipt of notice failed to send any reply. The excess amount paid to the opposite parties was not reimbursed to the complainant.

8.     From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that though the 1^st opposite party  and the complainant agreed to complete the complaint mentioned carpentry work for a sum of Rs.8,28,000/- including labour charges, but the complainant had paid advance sum of Rs.9,50,000/-.  Apart from that the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party for the carpentry work although the same has been paid already to the 1^st opposite party which is also evidenced through the legal notices.   It is pertinent to note that the 2^nd opposite party is engaged by the 1^st opposite party who ought to bear the labour charges of the complaint mentioned work, since the complainant had already paid the labour charges.  Whereas the 1^st opposite party failed to reimburse the excess amount paid by the complainant despite of receipt of legal notice.   The excess payment made by the complainant is not denied by the opposite parties by way of any reply notice.   As such it is established that the complainant had paid Rs.2,07,000/- as additional labour charges to the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party did not supply quality and standard Teak wood due to which there was gaps between the walls and frames and other complaint mentioned defects occurred is also acceptable through Civil Engineer report Ex.A5 which proves that he had to spend Rs.32,000/- to rectify the defects.  As such both the opposite parties committed deficiency in service is acceptable.    However the complainant seeking claim of reimbursement of the excess amount paid from both the opposite parties is not sustainable.  The 2^nd opposite party is engaged by the 1^st opposite party for doing the complaint mentioned carpentry work only to eak his livelihood.  Whereas only the 1^st opposite party is vicariously liable for the deficiency in service committed by the 2^nd opposite party and also absolutely liable for the sub-standard quality of wood supplied by him.  The 1^st opposite party is duty bound to give proper instruction to the 2^nd opposite party to complete the work to fullest satisfaction of the complainant whereas the 1^st opposite party had failed to do so as such the 1^st opposite party is liable to reimburse the excess amount of Rs.2,07,000/- collected from the complainant.

9.     Moreover the opposite parties had not appeared before this forum in order to defend their case by giving any contra evidence in spite of receipt of notice from this forum and as such they remained exparte.    

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to claim refund of a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- (Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the complainant – Rs.8,78,000/- being the estimation of the agreement  = Rs.2,07,000/-)  and also a sum of Rs.32,000/- which is the estimate value of the expenses to be incurred to complete the defective work as per Ex.A5.

11.       Furthermore due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant undergone sufferings and mental agony to complete the defective work is also acceptable.  As such the 1^st opposite party is also vicariously liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony caused to him. 

12.     As discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- (Rs.2,07,000/- + Rs.32,000/-) towards reimbursement of the excess labour charges for the complaint mentioned carpentry work and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards mental agony and also a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.  No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.

       In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The 1^st opposite party  is directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and thirty nine thousand only)  and  also to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only)  towards mental agony and also a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and  five hundred only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.2,39,000/- + Rs.6,000/-)  shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.  No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.    

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th  day of  June   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  17.1.2012 to  - Copy of payment receipt.

            29.4.2013    

Ex.A2- 26.6.2014      - Copy of legal notice with Ack. Card.

Ex.A3- 12.11.2014             - Copy of legal notice with Ack. Card.

Ex.A4- 9.11.2013      - Copy of State Bank of India Statement of Account.

 

Ex.A5- 23.11.2015             - Engineer’s report.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   -Nill-   (Exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.