Advocate N.S.Gokhale for the Complainant

Advocate Anand Akut for the Opponent

Per Hon’ble Shri. V.P. Utpat, President

                                     JUDGMENT

                                Dated 3^rdJuly, 2014

                This complaint is filed by consumer against Interior Decorator for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-

[1]            Complainant is resident of Krishna Apartments, Shivajinagar, Pune 5. He is the owner of the flat which is 30 yrs. old. He is residing in the flat along with his wife, one married son, daughter in law, grandson and another son. His flat is consisting of hall, kitchen, one bed room, one small room and toilet block. As the space of the flat found to be insufficient he has decided to convert the kitchen into bedroom and small room into kitchen. He has called quotation from various interior decorators. He has received six page quotation from Opponent. He found that the rates which were mentioned in the quotation by the Opponent were economic. Hence, he has placed with the Opponent. He has paid advance of Rs.25,000/- at the time of placing of order i.e. on 27/9/2010. Material was purchased on 2/10/2010 but the Opponent has not completed the work as per the assurance hence he had required to use the toilet block of neighbor and he has faced lot of inconvenience due to the incomplete work. Again on 18/11/2010 he paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opponent. The doors were not properly fitted. The kitchen trolley was not also prepared within the stipulated period as the Opponent had left the work incomplete.  The doors were not properly fitted. In total Complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the Opponent through bearer cheques. The kitchen trolley was not also prepared within the stipulated period as the Opponent had left the work incomplete. He had required to complete the work by engaging another contractor. Hence, he has filed present complaint for deficiency in service caused by the Opponent. He has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opponent.

[2]            Opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version. It is flatly denied by the Opponent that it has caused deficiency in service. It is also contended that there was no written agreement between the parties and there was no specification as regards rates, standard of material and period of completion of the work. Complicated questions are involved in this proceeding and those cannot be adjudicated in summary proceeding.  It is necessary to adjudicate this dispute by Civil Court. It is further contended that the Opponent has received Rs.75,000/- only. Complainant had not made payment. Hence, the work could not be completed. It is also contended that while family members of the complainant obstructed the workers while carrying out the renovation and there is no fault of Opponent in leaving the said work incomplete. The compensation amount which is asked by the complainant on the ground of mental and physical sufferings is also denied by the Opponent and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

[3]            After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documents and hearing the argument of both counsel following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Point Nos. 1 and 2-

Reasons-

[4]            The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had engaged Opponent for renovation of his flat and he was expecting that the work should be completed expeditiously, as the complainant and his family members were required to stay in the same flat. According to the Opponent there was no written agreement between the parties. There was no specification as regards standard of material and period of completion of the work. Complainant has not produced adequate evidence or expert opinion as regards deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint is not at all maintainable. It is pertinent to note that this is not a criminal complaint but it is civil in nature and in order to adjudicate the dispute in civil proceeding strict proof which is required in the criminal proceeding is not at all required. The dispute in the Civil Procedure should be adjudicated on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be decided summarily and the rules of evidence are not at all applicable. There is no procedure as regards recording of evidence and even the photographs which are produced by the parties cannot be considered as evidence in such proceeding. The complainant has produced in all 7 photographs in order to establish deficiency in service and it reveals from the said photographs that the doors of the toilet block and bathroom are not fitted properly, baskets are not provided for the kitchen trolley, the material is left in the open space and complainant cannot use the premises comfortably. It is true that the quotation which is produced by the complainant and which is supplied by the Opponent cannot be treated as an agreement between the parties but it cannot be considered as piece of evidence as regards the oral agreement between the parties. It is not denied by the Opponent that the work order was given by the complainant to the Opponent and certain amount was also paid by issuing cheque. There is dispute between the parties as regards payment. According to the complainant he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- but according to the Opponent, complainant has paid only Rs.75,000/-. But it reveals from the entries in the passbook that the entries as regards payment of Rs.75,000/- are shown in the name of Opponent. It is the case of complainant that one more cheque which was bearer cheque was also issued to the Opponent. But there is no evidence to that effect. Complainant has asked compensation for the incomplete work which was carried out by him by engaging another contractor. But it is the opinion of the Forum that, that amount cannot be asked from the Opponent. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that the Opponent has not utilized the amount which was paid to it. However, a legitimate inference can be drawn that complainant was always in hurry to complete the work and he must have co-operated with the Opponent and the Opponent has delayed the work of renovation. The learned Advocate for the Opponent argued before this Forum that this proceeding involves complicated question of law hence only Civil Court can adjudicate this dispute. But it reveals from the record as well as pleadings that,  the Opponent has not completed the renovation work, which has caused lot of inconvenience to the complainant and his family members. Hence, it should be presumed that the Opponent has caused deficiency in service. After considering the nature of dispute, it is the considered opinion of the Forum that the Opponent shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant in lumpsum for deficiency in service, for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation.

                In the result this Forum answers points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponent has caused deficiency in service by not completing the renovation work of complainant’s flat.
3. Opponent is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] to the complainant for deficiency in service, for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.

        Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 03/07/2014