Orissa

Cuttak

CC/38/2020

Suprava Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Premananda Dash - Opp.Party(s)

R N Nayak & associates

19 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.38/2020

Suprava Nayak,

W/O:Rabinarayan Nayak,

At:Shaktinagar,Plot No.11,Link Road,

P.S:Badambadi,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753012.                      ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Premananda Dash,Proprietor,

M/s. Sai Home Solutions, At Plot No.67/2862,

Dr. Adhiraj Plaza,Roxy Lane,

Badambadi,Cuttack-753009.

 

2.        Prasanta Behera,Business Partner,

M/s. Sai Home Solutions, At Plot No.67/2862,

Dr. Adhiraj Plaza,Roxy Lane,

Badambadi,Cuttack-753009....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.05.2020

Date of Order:  19.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. R.N.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :          Mr. A.C.Rath,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                                                     

            Case of the complainant in short is that complainant after going through the repeated advertisements of the O.Ps as regards to service at door step on the name and style as Sai Home Solutions having office at Badambmadi,Cuttack, had contacted both the O.Ps and had requested them to renovate her house including some interior works.  The O.Ps accordingly had visited her house and had estimated the cost to be of Rs.5,00,000/- including the interior works, kitchen and dining works like wall decoration, designed ceiling in five of her rooms ,ward robes in two rooms, study table in one room, dressing table and T.V. cabinet in one room to be completed within a period of three months.  Accordingly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in total to the O.Ps but no receipt was given to that effect to her.  That apart, the O.Ps had agreed to provide masons and labourers for the renovation work of the toilet of the complainant @ Rs.600/- per day and Rs.400/- per day respectively including 10% profit for the organization of the O.Ps.  The wages of the masons and labourers were being paid by the organisation of the O.Ps as agreed.  According to the complainant, the work undertaken by the O.Ps still remains incomplete.  It is further alleged by the complainant in her complaint petition that the O.Ps had provided cheaper quality of materials though they had agreed to provide branded materials and good quality sunmika/ply for her interior works.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps had committed unfair trade practice and were deficient in their service for which she has prayed seeking direction to the O.Ps to complete the work of her house or to return the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% per month.  She has also prayed to get an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards compensation of her mental agony, harassment alongwith any other order as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of certain documents like the advertisement of the O.Ps, the incomplete work and the payment as made from her bank pass book.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version conjointly.  Both the O.Ps through their written version have admitted to be dealing with the business of home solutions, interior renovation works but disputed about the payment as alleged to have been made to them by the complainant.   It is alleged by them that they had only received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque and they are yet to receive any further amount for which the renovation work could not be completed.  According to them, the dispute in between them and the complainant needs elaborate evidence which cannot be settled before this Commission.  In this regard they have relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Bombay Dying and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vrs. Union of India reported in 2001 Vol-I,CPJ(NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission had directed the complainant to agitate the grievance before the competent Civil Court since because the matter related to complicated question of facts and statement of accounts.  They have also relied upon another decision of Maharashtra State Commission reported in CPJ Vol.I 2000 page-36 in the case of B.P.Verma Vrs. R.P.Mishra.  Hence according to the O.Ps they have not adopted unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service and they had prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that of written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in this case in order to arrive at a definite conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant?

            iii.        Whether the O.Ps had practised unfair trade?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issues No.ii & iii.

            Issues no.2 & 3 being the important issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            After going through the averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition, copies of documents as filed by her and while going through the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission could know that there was no written agreement in between the parties to this case.  The complainant has also stated that it was an oral agreement.  Her contention is that, she had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the O.Ps but could not get any money receipt to that effect.  On the other hand, the O.Ps admit to have received only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant and since because no money was given to them further, they were unable to complete the work assigned to them.  From these averments, this Commission could know that infact the complainant had assigned the renovation work of her house to the O.Ps.  She has stated to have asked the O.Ps to renovate five of her rooms, her kitchen and dining room and she has specified the works assigned to them in her petition.  In absence of any cogent evidence, when the O.Ps to this case have disputed about the payment as alleged to have been made to them by the complainant and when the complainant is also unable to prove that infact she has paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the O.Ps, this Commission is unable to come to a conclusion that if really she had paid the advance amount as claimed by her to the tune of Rs.4,00000/- to the O.Ps and if about the total renovation work assigned.  Thus, it cannot be said here that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade and that they were deficient in their service due to lack of proper pevidence.  Accordingly these two issues are answered.

Issues no.i & iv.

            Ofcourse when the work assigned to the O.Ps was incomplete, the complainant had a cause of action to file this case and it cannot be said here that her case is not maintainable.  But as regards to the demand of reliefs made by her, this Commission is of a view that when the complainant is unable to prove the payment to the O.Ps as claimed by her to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and when the O.Ps only admit to have received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and when they have stated that due to lack of money, the work of the complainant could not be completed and when there is no written contract, this Commission due to lack of evidence can also never grant any of the reliefs as claimed by the complainant.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                           ORDER

            The case of the complainant is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any case.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th   day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                                   Member.