Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/677/2022

DR RAMESHWARI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PRAKASH - Opp.Party(s)

VISHWAS ARORA

07 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/677/2022
Date of Institution	:	19/07/2022
Date of Decision	:	07/05/2024

 

Dr. Rameshwari Sharma, aged 49, D/o K.N.Sharma, R/o H.No.148, Sector 55, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Om Prakash, Sole Proprietor M/s Krishna Decorators, R/o H.No.1004, Phase II, Ramdarbar, U.T., Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Raj Kumar Karanwal, Advocate proxy for Sh.Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate for Complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	OP in person.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant came in contact with Sh.Om Prakash, while he was already working on a house renovation in her neighbourhood. The OP discussed with the complainant that the total consideration amount shall be Rs.9,50,000/- for renovation of her complete house including furniture, raw material, tiles, labour charges etc. and the same was written by the said Om Prakash in his own handwriting and also bears his signature on the said list dated 21.08.2020 (Ex.C-1). It is crystal clear that the entire payment of Rs.9,50,000/- had been paid to the OP and nothing is lying pending towards the complainant, but after careful perusal of the statement, the complainant came to know that due to inadvertent mistake, she had made a surplus payment of Rs.1 lac to the OP on 2.12.2020 for which she reserves her right to claim the said amount from the OP (Ex.C-2 colly). Despite payment of the entire portion of the consideration which was Rs.9,50,000/- the OP till date has not competed the renovation of the house in accordance to what was discussed and promised (Ex.C-3). Not only this, the OP left the renovation work undone but a lot of discrepancies were observed by the complainant when she visited the house for inspection when she saw that the goods used in the house were all of very inferior quality. However, the OP had assured to use high end quality products such as Kajaria tiles, Philips lights, Havells wiring and switches etc., but nothing was done as per the commitments made by the OP. It is further submitted that the complainant was deprived of using the property for personal use as the renovation was not done in time as per the contract and the OP had refused to complete the renovation. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     However, perusal of the zimni order dated 2.5.2024 vide her separate statement, complainant has stated that she has received Rs.3388/- through Google Pay from the OP Sh.Om Parkash towards selling the scrap material, which was sold by the OP without her permission.  
3.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as the entire work was never agreed by the complainant to be completed with the items as the items for the work/construction/repair has to be provided by the complainant-Dr. Rameshwari which she failed to provide from time to time. The OP number of times from the date of starting of work, at the said flat, requested to the complainant-Dr. Rameshwari to provide the material/items to be installed at the house/flat, however, she always used to give an excuse at the time of providing the same and delay the matter, but never provided the same. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, as it is the complainant who failed to make the payment of Rs.3,51,862/- with respect to extra work got done. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OP.
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the Opposite Party and gone through the record of the case.
7.     As per the case of the complainant she paid Rs.9,50,000/- to the OP for getting the renovation of her house done including the material and labour charges. It has been further alleged by the complainant that OP used substandard material for the aforesaid purpose and also left some work undone. There is no agreement placed on record according to which the amount paid was for material and labour charges. On one hand complainant is stating that renovation was partially done, but not as per her expectations and on the other hand she is seeking refund of full amount paid.
8.     The allegation of the OP is that complainant has to pay Rs.3,51,862/- for getting the extra work done. In such like situation for the proper adjudication of the case lengthy evidence is required hence in our opinion, the matter seems fit for Civil Court.
9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate Forum.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
07/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member