Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

205/2009

M/S.Intech,C.R.Sathyanarayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Viswa Interiors & Decorators - Opp.Party(s)

A.Thirumaran

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 16.02.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 23.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.205 /2009

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 23^rd DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

M/s. Intech,

Rep. by its Proprietor

Mr. C.R. Sathyanarayana,

DP-74, Perungudi Industrial Estate,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.                                                 .. Complainant.                                                      

..Versus..

 

M/s. Viswa Interiors & Decorators,

No.15/2, Inbarajapuram First Street,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.                                              ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. A. Thirumaran

Counsel for opposite parties    :  M/s. R. Umasuthan & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying payment of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, loss, damages and  mental agony with cost of the complaint.

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The complainant submits that the opposite party is one of the leading interior decorator, undertook the project of the complainant and thereafter, a letter of Indent for the design, supply and erection of interior works dated:01.10.2007.   The complainant further submits that the complainant had effected payments to the opposite party on various occasions and the sum total of all the amounts paid to the opposite party amounting to Rs.4,15,000/-.  Further the complainant submits that the opposite party after commencement of work and receipt of huge amount of Rs.4,15,000/- stopped the work without any reason. Hence the complainant issued repeated letters on various dates but the opposite party has to complete the work on or before 21.11.2007. Thereby, the opposite party committed deficiency in service.  Further the complainant submits that the opposite party locked the premises and left abandon the work resulting to break open the locks and compelled to complete the work by another contractor. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notices dated:06.02.2008  and 17.12.2008 to settle the demands of the complainant ended in vain.   Hence the complaint is filed.

 

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that it is an admitted fact that the complainant and the opposite party entered into a contract for interior works.  As per the specification on 01.10.2007, the complainant placed the purchased order for the supply of wooden cupboard, wooden partition, false ceiling work and wall panelling.  But the progressive payment was not released by the complainant to the tune of 90% retaining 10%.  The complainant has released a sum of Rs.82,000/- against the agreed amount of Rs.6,19,407- and the additional work totalling of Rs.7,20,335/-.  Since the complainant has failed to release the amount, the opposite party was not able to continue the work and stopped the work even after repeated requests and demands.   The complainant failed and neglected to pay a sum of Rs.2,33,301/-.   Further the opposite party states that locking of premises resulting break open of the locks and carried out the works by other contractors to the tune for Rs.1,65,000/- is imaginary.  The compensation claimed is imaginary.  The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B22 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, loss, damages and  mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

The opposite party filed his written arguments.  Both parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint that the opposite party is one of the leading interior decorator undertook the project of the complainant as per Ex.A1, the letter of indent dated:01.10.2007 for designing and erection of interior works.  On a careful perusal of Ex.A1, the rate per sq. ft. and the nature of various works, with specifications including and period of work alone is available.  Ex.A1 is absolutely silent regarding the quantum of work and the quantum of amount.  The complainant has not pleaded and proved what is the quantum of work and quantum of amount in this case.   As per Ex.A3, the complainant stated that “inspite of all our efforts and paying you a total sum of Rs.3,40,000/- against the contract value of Rs.5,00,000/- the work has not been completed to the extent of the money you had received and you descried the site without any intimation to us”.    But in the complaint it is pleaded in para. No.6 :that the complainant had effected payments to the opposite party on various occasions and the sum total of all the amounts paid to the opposite party amounted to Rs.4,15,000/- only proves  that the complainant has not come forward with clean hands. 

6.     Further the complainant pleaded in the complaint that the opposite party after commencement of work and receipt of huge amount of Rs.4,15,000/- stopped the work without any reason.  Hence the complainant issued repeated letters as per Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 but the opposite party has to complete the work on or before 21.11.2007.  Thereby, the opposite party committed deficiency in service.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 letter of intent, the said date of 21.11.2007 is not mentioned.  Equally, the complainant has not paid the amount as per the stipulations in Ex.A1.  The complainant also has not produced any record to prove that he has paid the amount and complied the conditions as per Ex.A1.   For the 1^st time as per Ex.A2 letter, the complainant stated the date of completion of work, penalty etc which is not found a place in Ex.A1.  Further the complainant pleaded in the complaint that the opposite party locked the premises and left abundant the work resulting to break open the locks and compelled to complete the work with another contractor.  But the complainant has not produced any record to prove such work done by another contractor and payment of Rs.1,65,000/- to him.  The complainant also has not taken any steps to find out what are the works turned out by the opposite party and what are the works left by the opposite party and what are the works done by another contractor to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- proves that the complainant has not established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, a contract for interior work was entered as per Ex.A1.  But Ex.A1 is totally vague and fishy.  As per the specification on 01.10.2007, the complainant placed the purchased order for the supply of wooden cupboard wooden partition, false ceiling work and wall panelling.  But the progressive payment was not released by the complainant to the tune of 90% retaining 10%.  The complainant has released a sum of Rs.82,000/- is admitted in Ex.B6 against the agreed amount of Rs.6,19,407- and the additional work totalling of Rs.7,20,335/-.  Since the complainant has failed to release the amount, the opposite party was not able to continue the work and stopped the work.    Even after repeated requests and demands, the complainant failed and neglected to pay a sum of Rs.2,33,301/- as per Ex.A7.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that locking of premises resulting break open of the locks and carried out the works by other contractors to the tune for Rs.1,65,000/- is imaginary and is not proved by the complainant.  The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.  The compensation claimed is imaginary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	01.10.2007	Copy of letter of indent
Ex.A2	03.11.2007	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A3	06.02.2008	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A4	06.02.2008	Legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A5	28.02.2008	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A6	01.03.2008	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A7	08.05.2008	Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A8		Copy of statement regarding payment by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A9	17.12.2008	Legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A10		Copy of returned cover

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	01.10.2007	Original Purchase order issued by the complainant
Ex.B2	03.10.2007	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B3	11.10.2007	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B4	12.10.2007	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B5	18.10.2007	Copy of letter for payment by the opposite party
Ex.B6	03.11.2007	Original letter from the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.B7	06.11.2007	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B8	14.11.2007	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B9	06.11.2007	Copy of the opposite party’s bill for payment
Ex.B10	14.11.2007	Copy of the opposite party’s bill for payment
Ex.B11	15.11.2007	Copy of the opposite party’s bill for payment
Ex.B12	15.12.2007	Copy of the opposite party’s bill for payment
Ex.B13	28.12.2007	The complainant’s letter to the opposite party - Original
Ex.B14	12.02.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s bill for payment
Ex.B15	28.02.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s letter to the complainant
Ex.B16	01.03.2008	The opposite party’s letter to the complainant -Original
Ex.B17	01.03.2008	The complainant’s letter to opposite party - Original
Ex.B18	04.03.2008	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to complainant
Ex.B19	12.03.2008	Original delivery challan of the opposite party to complainant
Ex.B20	23.04.2008	Copy of the opposite party bill for payment
Ex.B21	05.05.2008	The complainant’s letter to opposite party - Original
Ex.B22	08.05.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s letter to complainant with original postal receipt

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT