This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 05-07-11 in the presence of Sri J. Narasimha Rao, advocate for complainant and opposite party set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking return of  Rs.1,53,984/- (being the advance amount given to the opposite party towards interior decoration) with interest at 24% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service, mental and physical suffering and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

In the 3^rd week of June, 2009 the complainant entrusted the work of interior decoration worth of Rs.8,00,000/- in all bed rooms, ward robes, and 1 No. dressing table 1 No., in child room 2 Nos., cots and study tables dressing table in hall TV Unit and partition one pooja box and kitchen cabinets and storage with breakfast counter, false ceiling with wood combination and lighting with sufficient lighting, painting for ceiling and back wall of cot with designer paints, all hardware and glass as per the approved design plan.  The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 10-07-09, Rs.1,00,000/- on 18-08-09, Rs.40,000/- on 24-08-09, Rs.20,000/- on 17-09-09, Rs.5,000/- on  15-09-09 and Rs.5,000/- on 22-09-09 to the opposite party by way of  cash and cheques.   The opposite party agreed to complete the work within 90 days.   The opposite party did POP work for the 1^st floor and 2^nd floor only in an extent of 1084 sq.ft. worth of Rs.26,016/-.                 The opposite party failed to complete the work of interior decoration in time and thus committed deficiency of service.  The complainant suffered mentally for not performing gruhapravesam on auspicious day due to the said attitude of the opposite party.  The complainant estimated the damage at Rs.1,00,000/-.   The opposite party managed to get the notice returned.    The complaint therefore be allowed.

2.The opposite party was set exparte on substituted service.  

3.Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of complainant.  The complainant also filed the affidavit of technical person.

4.Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1.Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?

2.Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?

3.To what relief?

5.   POINTS 1 & 2:-  Ex.A-1 addressed to the husband of complainant revealed the work undertaken by the opposite party in the house of the complainant.  Under Ex.A-2 one G.Manikanta on behalf of the opposite party received Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on                            17-09-09, Under Ex.A-3 one G.S.V.Babu on behalf of the opposite party received Rs.40,000/- from the complainant on 24-08-09.                   Ex.A-6 is the ledger extract of the complainant with Bank of India, Guntur and it revealed that an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 22-07-09 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 31-08-09 was withdrawn by the opposite party through cheques given by the complainant.   Thus the complainant established about she giving Rs.1,70,000/- only to the opposite party.

6.     The complainant contended that the opposite party did POP work to a tune of Rs.26,016/-.   To prove it the complainant filed affidavit of one Kotapati Raghava Rao a Chartered Engineer and approved valuer, Guntur.   Affidavit of the said Raghava Rao revealed that the work of POP done by the opposite party was worth of Rs.26,016/-.   The affidavit of the said Raghava Rao coupled with Ex.A-1 revealed that the opposite party did not complete the interior decoration work undertaken by him in the house of the complainant.   Therefore we opine that the opposite party committed deficiency of service and the opposite party has to return the remaining amount of Rs1,43,984/-.  

7.     The contention of the complainant that she did not perform gruhapravesam on the auspicious day on account of the deficiency of service of the opposite party and undergoing mental agony is having considerable force. Compensation to be awarded is just and reasonable.   Awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- in our considered opinion is just and proper.   We therefore answer these points in favour of the complainant accordingly.

8.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below: 

          1.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,43,984/-     (Rupees one lakh, forty three thousand nine hundred and eighty four only) together with interest at 12%p.a., from 22-11-09 till date of realization.

2.     The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/-                  (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation and                           Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

3.The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 8th day of              July, 2011.

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   NIL

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT