BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to pay Rs.25,000/- for the damages on the wall and painting along with veneer door scratches, to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service, incomplete work and fraudulent act of OP, pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards home deep cleaning, pay sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m. for rental income loss due to delay in completion, pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship to the complainant and family members and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant being resident of flat No.401, Sainikethan apartment Pai layout, Bangalore assigned interior works to OP for his another flat No.11038 Prestige Finsbury Park, Gummanahalli, Bagalur, Bengaluru. OP submitted detailed quotation for the interior dated 02.12.2023. On the same day OP confirmed that he will engage electrician for his furniture work and if complainant want to do any work, can voluntarily pay Rs.1,500/- and rest can be taken care by OP. On 04.12.2023, complainant identified gap in quotation and highlighted Whatsapp chat which is agreed by OP and corrected the quotation based on that complainant booked the service at the quoted price of Rs.3,73,000/-. He also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to start the work as an initial payment. On 04.12.2023, complainant paid Rs.4,130/- to prestige builder for carpentry services which facilitates moment of debris from common area, common washroom service in ground floor for the carpenters etc. Complainant in the beginning informed OP to use common washroom and to own any damage inside or outside the property in prestige Finsbury Park. On 05.12.2023 complainant paid remaining amount of 1^st installment Rs.1,75,000/-. Complainant requested a small modification on 17.12.2023 for which OP asked additional amount of Rs.5,600/- and adjusted the price in the second payment. Complainant himself has purchased cabinetry handles on 17.12.2023, OP adjusted the price of Rs.10,500/- in the second payment. On 17^th and 18^th of December, complainant paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,100/- towards second payment.

3. Complainant further stated that on 26.12.2023, OP shared progress of work which was based on the agreed quotation, where complainant highlighted in acrylic mirror finish wardrobe. But after several communications, OP kept on insisting complainant and finish the same to lamination, which is not acceptable by the complainant. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 06.01.2024 towards final payment which includes additional Rs.2,000/- for washroom cabinet work. On 10.01.2024 complainant visited a site to check the work and get electrical appliance installation like fan, tube light, LED etc. where complainant identified several gaps listed under and after hearing the gaps OP left the premises in anger without acknowledging.

4. On 10.01.2024, after completion of electrical work OP asked additional Rs.1,500/- on top of Rs.1,500/- which was already paid by the complainant to the electrician based on initial verbal agreement. When the complainant denied the same, OP threatened him and informed his servants not to proceed with the work and keep the home keys. On 12.01.2024, complainant requested to return home keys, wherein OP demanded more money and threatened again for not returning the home keys. Later, OP not resolved the problem, instead he blocked complainant’s number intentionally to cheat and defraud.

5. On 20.01.2024, complainant registered case before Bagalur Police Station where Sub-Inspector requested OP for meeting, OP denied for any discussion and threatened to do whatever complainant’s wants to do, but he’ll not be going to complete the work nor own the damages and will not return the home keys. At the time of mediation, when the Sub-Inspector has failed to mediate and solve the problem, complainant caused notice on 22.01.2024 to OP calling upon fulfill the agreed obligations served through E-mail. Despite receiving the E-mail OP did not respond till date, hence complainant approached this commission for the relief.

6. Notice sent to OP through RPAD, but OP was absent on the date of appearance, inspite of service of notice. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

7. Complainant filed his Affidavit Evidence along with 6 copies of documents and Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Heard complainant’s argument and perused the materials on record.

8. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

iii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iv) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:-Affirmative.

Point No.2:-Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:-These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

11. After perusal of pleadings and documents, it is proved that complainant has assigned the interior works at his Prestige Finsbury Park Apartment, as per the revised quotation dated 04.12.2023. According to the estimation, OP has quoted Rs.3,73,000/- as a final amount for the work assigned to him including electrical work he has confirmed the assignment which is at Ex.P.2. The payment details mentioned in Ex.P.2 is for 60%, 35% and 5% as first to third installment. Accordingly complainant has paid stage by stage Rs.3,71,600/- as he stated and produced Ex.P.4 and the receipt of Rs.4,130/- paid towards interior fitout charges of the flat issued by prestige property management services.

12. As we observed complainant has paid the entire agreed amount to OP, but OP has not completed his work as agreed upon. The whatsapp communications produced in Ex.P.3, reveals that several requests and communications between complainant and OP shows the arrogant and rudeness in his attitude by OP and not completed the work as the complainant required. In the whatsapp communication dated 01.12.2024, he threatens complainant even after the receipt of the entire amount and not complied with the damages caused due to his negligent work, but he has not attended the same and rectified the damages before handing over the keys, but even after several requests OP did not hand over the keys. Complainant sent E-mail on 22.01.2024 calling upon OP to rectify the damages on brand new wall and painting and the other 15 grievances which is at Ex.P.5, but OP did not come forward to rectify the same. Complainant has produced few photographs of damaged items and the work of the OP which are at Ex.P.6.

13. Here the complainant has not produced any document with regard to completion and incompletion of the work as per the quotation but he claimed Rs.25,000/- for the damages on wall and painting along with veneer door scratches, hence this claim is justifiable and he is entitled to. OP even after the notice has duly served on him, not appeared before this commission to deny the allegations and defend his case, hence the evidence placed by the complainant before this commission are unchallenged. OP is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the damages he caused at the time of interior works by OP. Complainant has not stated anything about the completion of remaining work by other interior designer, hence it is not be considered much. Therefore, complainant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards the compensation for the deficiency of the service by OP, harassment, might have caused mental agony to the entire family. OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation for no fault of complainant incurred money to get justice by paying and wasting his precious time. On the above reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

14. Point No.4:-In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the damages he caused on damages on the wall and painting along with veneer door scratches.
3. OP if further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall have to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on Award amount from the date of complaint till realization.
4. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of June 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL