M/s.Radiant enterprises V/S D venkatesh - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2316

D venkatesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Radiant enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2316

D venkatesh						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s.Radiant enterprises						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2316/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. D. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Dasegowda, Aged about 61 years, 2. Smt. N. Jayamma, W/o. Sri. D. Venkatesh, Aged about 47 years, Care of No. 14, 1st Floor, Sree Venkateshwara Building, Dr. D.V.G. Road, Gandhibazar, Bangalore 560 004. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Radiant Enterprises, Authorised Service Provider for Asian Paints, Home Solutions, No. 25, 1st Floor, Goover Road, Off Wheelers Road, Cox Town, Bangalore 560 005. Represented by its Sales Associate - Home Solutions. Advocate (A.B. Harkunikar) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.6,40,500/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant No.2 is the wife of complainant No.1, they have got the property No.30 at Kaikondarahalli, which has got four floors, they availed the services of the OP for painting the said whole block both inside and outside. An agreement came to be executed on 31.05.2006. OP collected in all Rs.1,22,500/- and agreed to complete the pending work within 50 days. Complainants paid the entire amount of Rs.1,22,500/-, but unfortunately OP did not complete the said work. Though he deputed one painter by name Vaman, he was not prompt in painting the said block. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the OP, went in futile. The said painting work was done in a piecemeal, that too a sub standard work. The complainant was thinking of to let out the said premises. Then he made his own arrangement to get it painted through some other painter by spending Rs.75,000/-. Though they are not obliged to supply turpentine, brush, emery papers, chalk powder, etc., at the request of the painter of OP they did supply the same, which is worth of Rs.4,500/-, but still OP painter did not complete the work. Though complainants invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. For 21 months they are unable to let out the said building, thereby suffered monetary loss of Rs.5,61,000/- by way of rent. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP this is not a consumer dispute at all and services availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose. It is further contended that OP did complete the pending work as per the work order dated 31.05.2006 within stipulated period of 50 days. Being satisfied with the said work complainant paid the balance of amount on 15.07.2006. The other allegations of complainant are all false and frivolous. When OP is required to invest his own money for the use of the paint, turpentine, brush, emery papers, etc., there was no need for the complainant to purchase the same and give it to their painter. In addition to that there is no proof to that effect. It is further contended that the allegations of the complainant that he availed the services of other painter and spent nearly Rs.75,000/- to complete the unattended work is also false. The whole of the complaint is devoid of merits, tainted with ulterior and oblique motive. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation as prayed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:-In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP for painting their new building consisting of ground, first, second third and fourth floor. An agreement came to be executed on 31.05.2006, wherein OP agreed to paint the said building both inside and outside for a total cost of Rs.1,22,500/-. It is also not at dispute that complainant paid the said amount and OP acknowledged it. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP is obliged to complete the said painting work within 50 days, they failed to do so. The so called painter deputed by OP by name Vaman was not at all attending the said painting work promptly, he is doing the piecemeal work and kept pending the work for more than 3 months. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to complete the painting job well within a stipulated period, went in futile. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that at the request of the OP painter they provided 60 litres of turpentine, 4 big brushes for painting, 100 sheets of emery papers, 2 bags of chalk powder, 25 putty blades for painting. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties, it is the look out of the OP to purchase the necessary required material for completing the said painting work. Under such circumstances what made the complainant to purchase the said material may be worth of Rs.4,500/- and give it to the painter of the OP is not known. That fact was not intimated to the OP before handing over the said material to the painter. In addition to that complainants have not produced any documents to show that they have actually purchased the said material. On which date they purchased the said material and gave it to the painter is not known. Hence for this simple reason the contention of the complainant that they have purchased the said material referred to above and gave it to the OP painter rather does not hold much force. 8. It is further contended by the complainant that when their requests and demands made to the OP, went in futile they availed the services of the an other painter and got completed the painting work by spending Rs.75,000/-. Who is that painter, when his services were availed, when he completed the said painting is not known. There is no proof of payment of Rs.75,000/- or purchase of the paints, it is a bald statement. No affidavit of the so called painter is filed. Under such circumstances we find that contention of the complainant also appears to be baseless and false. 9. It is specifically contended by the OP that they did complete the painting work well within the stipulated period of time as per the work order that is within 50 days and complainant being satisfied with the said work released the last payment of Rs.24,500/- on 15.07.2006. If the contention of the complainants were to be true that the painting was not done within a stipulated period and whatever the piecemeal work done is of inferior quality, we do not think in the ordinary course of time, complainant would have released the last payment. Under such circumstances we find the defence set out by the OP appears to be reasonable and acceptable. 10. There is a proof that OP completed the painting within 50 days of time from the date of work order. The other contention of the complainant that for want of the painting of the whole building in time they are deprived of letting it out, also appears to be baseless. The whole of the complaint is highly imaginary and it is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2316/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. D. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Dasegowda, Aged about 61 years, 2. Smt. N. Jayamma, W/o. Sri. D. Venkatesh, Aged about 47 years, Care of No. 14, 1st Floor, Sree Venkateshwara Building, Dr. D.V.G. Road, Gandhibazar, Bangalore 560 004. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Radiant Enterprises, Authorised Service Provider for Asian Paints, Home Solutions, No. 25, 1st Floor, Goover Road, Off Wheelers Road, Cox Town, Bangalore 560 005. Represented by its Sales Associate - Home Solutions. Advocate (A.B. Harkunikar) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.6,40,500/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant No.2 is the wife of complainant No.1, they have got the property No.30 at Kaikondarahalli, which has got four floors, they availed the services of the OP for painting the said whole block both inside and outside. An agreement came to be executed on 31.05.2006. OP collected in all Rs.1,22,500/- and agreed to complete the pending work within 50 days. Complainants paid the entire amount of Rs.1,22,500/-, but unfortunately OP did not complete the said work. Though he deputed one painter by name Vaman, he was not prompt in painting the said block. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to the OP, went in futile. The said painting work was done in a piecemeal, that too a sub standard work. The complainant was thinking of to let out the said premises. Then he made his own arrangement to get it painted through some other painter by spending Rs.75,000/-. Though they are not obliged to supply turpentine, brush, emery papers, chalk powder, etc., at the request of the painter of OP they did supply the same, which is worth of Rs.4,500/-, but still OP painter did not complete the work. Though complainants invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. For 21 months they are unable to let out the said building, thereby suffered monetary loss of Rs.5,61,000/- by way of rent. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP this is not a consumer dispute at all and services availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose. It is further contended that OP did complete the pending work as per the work order dated 31.05.2006 within stipulated period of 50 days. Being satisfied with the said work complainant paid the balance of amount on 15.07.2006. The other allegations of complainant are all false and frivolous. When OP is required to invest his own money for the use of the paint, turpentine, brush, emery papers, etc., there was no need for the complainant to purchase the same and give it to their painter. In addition to that there is no proof to that effect. It is further contended that the allegations of the complainant that he availed the services of other painter and spent nearly Rs.75,000/- to complete the unattended work is also false. The whole of the complaint is devoid of merits, tainted with ulterior and oblique motive. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation as prayed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:-In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP for painting their new building consisting of ground, first, second third and fourth floor. An agreement came to be executed on 31.05.2006, wherein OP agreed to paint the said building both inside and outside for a total cost of Rs.1,22,500/-. It is also not at dispute that complainant paid the said amount and OP acknowledged it. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP is obliged to complete the said painting work within 50 days, they failed to do so. The so called painter deputed by OP by name Vaman was not at all attending the said painting work promptly, he is doing the piecemeal work and kept pending the work for more than 3 months. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to complete the painting job well within a stipulated period, went in futile. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that at the request of the OP painter they provided 60 litres of turpentine, 4 big brushes for painting, 100 sheets of emery papers, 2 bags of chalk powder, 25 putty blades for painting. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties, it is the look out of the OP to purchase the necessary required material for completing the said painting work. Under such circumstances what made the complainant to purchase the said material may be worth of Rs.4,500/- and give it to the painter of the OP is not known. That fact was not intimated to the OP before handing over the said material to the painter. In addition to that complainants have not produced any documents to show that they have actually purchased the said material. On which date they purchased the said material and gave it to the painter is not known. Hence for this simple reason the contention of the complainant that they have purchased the said material referred to above and gave it to the OP painter rather does not hold much force. 8. It is further contended by the complainant that when their requests and demands made to the OP, went in futile they availed the services of the an other painter and got completed the painting work by spending Rs.75,000/-. Who is that painter, when his services were availed, when he completed the said painting is not known. There is no proof of payment of Rs.75,000/- or purchase of the paints, it is a bald statement. No affidavit of the so called painter is filed. Under such circumstances we find that contention of the complainant also appears to be baseless and false. 9. It is specifically contended by the OP that they did complete the painting work well within the stipulated period of time as per the work order that is within 50 days and complainant being satisfied with the said work released the last payment of Rs.24,500/- on 15.07.2006. If the contention of the complainants were to be true that the painting was not done within a stipulated period and whatever the piecemeal work done is of inferior quality, we do not think in the ordinary course of time, complainant would have released the last payment. Under such circumstances we find the defence set out by the OP appears to be reasonable and acceptable. 10. There is a proof that OP completed the painting within 50 days of time from the date of work order. The other contention of the complainant that for want of the painting of the whole building in time they are deprived of letting it out, also appears to be baseless. The whole of the complaint is highly imaginary and it is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.