Date of Filing: 27.06.2014

                                                                                        Date of Order: 01.10.2018                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Smt. D.Nirmala, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

   Monday, the 1^st day of October, 2018

C.C.No.422/2014

Between

AASISH SIRIGIRI,

S/o. Sri Satyanarayana Sirigiri,

Age : 31 years,

Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-4-84/80,

Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam,

Hyderabad – 500008.                                                                       ……COMPLAINANT

And

1. M/s. RAFAL INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Rafal K. Joseph,

2. Mr. RAFAL K.JOSEPH,

Age: Major, Occ: Interior Designer,

Both Ops.1 & 2 R/o. Flat No.136, B Block,

Maheshwari Towers,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad – 500034.

And also at H.No.6-36/31, Sai Krishna Colony,

Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad – 500011.                      …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Counsel for the complainant        :  Sri Lakshmi Kanth

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:  Sri S.M.Subhani & S.Ammerunnisa Begum

O R D E R

(By Hon’ble Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986. Complainant owned a House at Block No.145, Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam. Opposite Party No.2 is the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 Pvt. Ltd., Company dealing in Renovations and Interior works.  Complainant selected Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 for renovation of interior works on his House as they were referred to him by just dial Tele Marketing Company.  The Opposite Party No.2 as the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 Company agreed to renovation the complainant’s house on a total cost of Rs.14,78,500/- inclusive of material, labour and transportation and types of works to be attended by Opposite Parties are enumerated as 49 items.

1. At the time of entering into an Agreement the Opposite Party No.2 assured to complete all the works within 90 days from the date of Agreement.  Prior to the Agreement complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 18.10.2013 as advance and on 23.10.2013 an Agreement was entered into and on the said date an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid.  Again on 24.10.2013 at the request of Opposite Party No.2 a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to Opposite Party No.2 and thus, by 24.10.2013 Opposite Party No.2 collected a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-.  Subsequent to that, at the insistence of Opposite Party No.2 further amounts were paid and total amount received by him was Rs.12,39,240/- by 25.01.2014 out of the total agreed amount of Rs.14,78,500/-.
2. From the beginning itself Opposite Parties are very lazy in doing the works, complainant vacated the House and shifted to a rented premises situate nearby own house.  But, he was always available at the site.  The Opposite Parties failed to complete the work within 90 days as agreed in the Agreement.  The complainant at the time of his visit to the site noticed that worker’s stopped to come to the site and work was totally stopped for more than 20 days as Opposite Party No.2 failed to pay the amounts to them.  The complainant tried to contact Opposite Party No.2 but, he was not available even on phone.  The Office of Opposite Party No.2 was also shuttered down for quiet long time.  Finally, the Opposite Party No.2 responded the complainant’s phone call and told that, he was out of station.  Having vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Party No.2, complainant contacted his counsel for legal opinion.  There upon his counsel called the Opposite Party No.2 on phone, Opposite Party No.2 requested some time to complete the work but, postponed the schedule fixed for the completion of woks for one or other reason.  Later, Opposite Party No.2 contacted the Complainant’s counsel and informed that, he went on a trip to Tirupathi was tied. Thereafter on 15.02.2014 he met the complainant at the site and assured that, he will hand over the House after completing all the works by 15.04.2014.  But, he didn’t do any work and worked were not seen at the till the end of February, 2014.  In the meanwhile, Opposite Party No.2 approached the complainant and discussed about the removal of stair case but the complainant asked the Opposite Party No.2 first to complete the works agreed under the Agreement dated 23.10.2013 and then discuss other things.  The complainant went into depression as Opposite Party No.2 was charging huge amount without doing the work.  Later,   

3.           The complainant with family and aged father were staying in a rented house by paying a rent of Rs.30,000/- per month.  On 15.03.2014 Opposite Party No.2 had sent email with baseless and untenable allegations inorder to avoid the major part of interior works.  Opposite Party No.2 having committed to complete and hand over the premises by 15.04.2014 did not turn up at the site till 20.04.2014.  In the email sent on 15.03.2014 Opposite Party No.2 alleged that, on 03.03.2014 he has witnessed attending of works at the site by some unauthorized workers which is infact false.  The complainant in the reply email dated 20.04.2014 informed that, he never entrusted the pending works to any other agency and was waiting for completion of works by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2.      

4.                After expiry of date of the commitment given by Opposite Party No.2, complainant approached him and reminded about the pending works in the site and asked to complete the same or else refund the amount paid after deducting the amount for the work done with interest @ 3% per month damages, compensation and costs for by not completing the works as agreed under the agreement.  But, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 neither completed the works nor refunded any part of the amount and infact Opposite Party No.2 gave a reckless answer.  Having seen no progress in the work at the site the complainant on 1^st May of 2014 approached other interior and entrusted the renovation works which the Opposite Parties left incomplete as by then the complainant was struggling and suffered a lot. 

5. At the time of entering into Agreement Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 have agreed to attend 48 types of works as shown in the agreement.  After the agreement and collecting of major part of the amount,  the Opposite Party No. 2 stated that, most difficult part for any renovation work is planning and designing it into the original 100% Vaastu shape and the designs was submitted in second drawings only without any works was done in reality.  The Opposite Party No.2 at the time of his last visit to the site on 03.03.2014 admitted that, the debris collected the site was not lifted and by then only 10% of work was completed.  As on the date of last visit to the site by Opposite Party No.2 plumbing work was not started.  Normally only after completion of plumbing work the work relating to floor plan furnishing drawings, elevation drawings false ceiling designs, electrical plans will be taken up.  The Opposite Parties have shown all the work only on papers but not at the site.  The Opposite Parties have admitted that, they have already received, extra amount for additional work which are not agreed under the Agreement.
6. The opposite parties by not attending the works as agreed under the agreement dated 23.10.2013 violated terms and conditions of it.  The Opposite Parties have collected more than 84% of the agreed amount but, only 10% of the work was done.  Hence, they are liable to refund an amount of Rs.10,91,390/- with interest @ 3% per month from January, 2014.  Value of work done by the Opposite Parties is Rs.1,47,850/-.  Hence, an amount of Rs.10,91,390/- is unjustifiably retained for all these years and liable to pay refund it with interest @ 3% per month from January,2014 to April, 2014 and it comes to Rs.1,30,960/-.  Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 by not completing the renovation and interior works within the agreed time have caused mental agony and sufferings to the complainant and his other family members.  Hence, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation.  Thus, the total amount now payable by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 is Rs.18,87,840/-.  Hence, the present complaint for a direction to Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to pay the same with interest @ 36% p.a., from the date of complaint to till the date of payment and costs of this complaint.         
7. Opposite Party No.2 as the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 filed written version admitting about the entering into an Agreement with the complainant to carryout renovation and interior works for a total cost of Rs.14,78,500/- but, denied the other allegations of the complainant.  The substance of written version is that, he has inspected the site of the complainant and gave quotation as per the complainant’s requirements for renovation and interior designing of the house.  The total cost of the project on Turnkey basis agreed in between the parties was Rs.14,78,500/-.  The types of the work required to be attended the new civil works and the rooms which are constructed would be made to 100% Vaastu as per the suggestion given by Vaastu consultant and all the necessary changes would be laid for extension of the rooms and if required another three footing would be laid after the approval of the final design by himself as a structural Engineer.  An agreement was entered into writing on 23.10.2013 and he received advance amount also.  As per the Agreement 50% of total bill amount paid.  He started designing work from the very next day of agreement and completed the second designing plan by 07.11.2013 and it was emailed to the complainant and hard copy was also shown to him.  The complainant approved the floor plan and initial design.  Thereafter he started the work on 07.11.2013.  The complainant agreed to pay extra amounts for all the extension works accepted and done by Opposite Parties apart from primary agreed amount.
8. On 10.12.2013 complainant called the Opposite Parties for the extension of Civil Works to the pent house by demolishing of existing one and to construct a new room in the place of old one and same was agreed by Opposite Parties and started the work and completed the slab on 30.12.2013.  When the Opposite parties asked for continuation of the Civil Works in the ground floor area the complainant called Opposite Party No.2 at the site and asked to extended the second phase of the extension work which is a major one as it includes demolishing of two floors, supporting walls, stair case elevation slab cutting in South East corner of the elevation, low roof in the kitchen and lifting of debris and same was agreed by Opposite Parties and started the work simultaneously.  In the meanwhile, execution of the initial agreed works continued parallelly.  They continued the demolishing of complete ground floor walls, master bed room and it’s attached bath room, common bath room, parents bed room wall extension,   complete back yard demolishing of wash room, storage room, back yard two elevation floor balconies, kitchen, Pooja room, living room wall extension, demolishing and removing of complete windows and doors of ground floor and removal of marble flooring of the entire ground floor.
9. Before entering into the agreement and starting of the works the complainant told that, there are no rows and columns for the building for which demolishing was to be done in a very professional manner with the experience of Civil Engineers and professionals.  The Opposite Parties started the work and it went on in a slow pace initially due to feedback given by the complainant about the rows and columns.  But, when the works of new four footings for the columns to be raised in the empty back yard of the building the engineers of the Opposite Parties have noticed that, there are rows and columns to the building and it shows the wrong feedback by the complainant and his father.   Immediately the same was informed to the complainant who expressed a positive approach in speeding of the works for renovation as per design provided by the Opposite Parties and approved by him.  Opposite Parties raised four columns in the back yard for renovation and extension of the building and completed the first and second floor slabs extension in a very good pace and the complainant satisfied with the work and made payments. 
10. In the ground floor after demolishing of the walls for the Master bed room, children bed room, Pooja, Kitchen, living and dining rooms, the opposite parties constructed new walls by using fly ash bricks.  The complainant was requested to remove the unwanted furniture in the building as it was causing obstructions in continuing the work.  But, he delayed it and it resulted to stoppage the work for 10 to 15 days.  Thereafter the complainant removed the same from the site and called upon Opposite Party No.2 for 3^rd phase of extension of work and gave an order to construct new slab area for the pent house and same was agreed and completed by 15.01.2014 and complainant paid additional amount also for it.
11. The Opposite Parties completed the fourth extension civil works, then the complainant made a request to leave this place for storage by giving a low roof above the wash rooms.  Then, the Opposite Party No.2 called for a meeting for the complainant and his father but the complainant due to his busy schedule could not come for final review meeting for the civil structure.  The Opposite Parties were planning to execute the work as soon and didn’t want any more extensions of works so that they could complete the primary work and as per the schedule.  Hence, Opposite Party No.2 prepared a final plan for all the possible designs and extension and sent the drawing of new stair case, demolishing of main entrance, compound wall gate for extending the stair case as per civil drawing.  After demolishing of the compound wall and gate Opposite Party No.2 received a call from 9391008913 by one Sri Lakshmi Kanth stated to be an advocate and asked to come to the site to meet him and the complainant for discussion.  On 15.02.2014 a meeting took place with the complainant and his advocate by Opposite Party No.2 about the execution and completion of total extension works within the time frame by 15.04.2014. The Opposite Parties accepted it and agreed to complete the extension and primary works mentioned in the agreement by the said date.  The complainant agreed to pay separately for all the extra works done in his email communication and made payment of Rs.4,50,000/- by 22.01.2014.  The complainant made payments agreed for his work completed by the Opposite Parties as per the terms and conditions.  The extra works were executed simultaneously with the main works agreed under the agreement.  The Opposite Parties have taken the works phase by phase so that the civil works were completed before starting of interior works. 
12. The workers of the Opposite Parties went to the site on 03.03.2014 to start plumbing works along with the Managing Director and site Supervisor and have seen that some other unauthorized workers were working in the site.  When asked the said workers told that, they were given remaining balance work by the complainant.  It shows that the complainant without informing the Opposite Parties entrusted the balance work to third parties all of a sudden, hence, the Opposite Party No.2 contacted the complainant on his phone and at that time the complainant gave reply in a very rude manner and asked the Opposite Party No.2 to contact his advocate for further discussion.  The complainant having entrusted the removal work to a third agency is now demanding refund of the amount paid by him for the work done. 
13. The most difficult part of any renovation work of the house is planning and designing it into 100% Vaastu which was given to the complainant as per the changes made by him in the second and third drawings and they were approved by him.  The complainant by giving the balance work to third party without intimation to the Opposite Party No.2 violated terms and conditions of the agreement.  The Opposite Parties have completed 90% of the works and they have all proofs, photographs of the works at this site, cash vouchers, payment receipts, bills and work for second and third designs, amended new structural drawing, floor plans, furniture positioning drawings, furniture elevation drawings, false ceiling designs, electrical plans, plumbing plans, for the entire structure of new building planned and designed by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, they are not liable to refund any amount to complainant.  The amount received from the complainant was used for the completion of extension works on the site and extra amount is being held with the Opposite Parties so, the question of refunding any amount to the complainant doesn’t arise.  Complainant is not entitled the amounts claimed by him and infact, he is due of Rs.10,50,000/- to the Opposite Parties and they are taking steps to recover the same from him.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.         
14. In enquiry stage the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit and the substance of same is inconsonance with the material averments of the complaint.  He also got exhibited twelve (12) documents in support of his case.  Similarly the Opposite Party No.2 who is the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1got filed his evidence affidavit and substance of the same is in tune with the defense set out in the common written version filed for both the Opposite Parties.  He too got exhibited bunch of Xerox copies of receipts for the purchase of the material for executing the work for the subject premises as Ex.B1.
15. Bothsides have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with oral submissions.
16.  On a consideration of material on the record the following points have fallen for consideration: 

1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties to the complainant to whom they agreed to undertake the work of renovation of his house and to carryout interior and other related works entailing the complainant to claim compensation in addition to refund of the amount paid with interest thereon ?
2. To what relief?

17.  Point No.1: The admitted facts are the complainant had chosen the Opposite Parties for renovation of his house and both parties after due negotiations have entered into an agreement under Ex.A1. The quotation given by the Opposite Parties to carry out the entire renovation and the interior works was at Rs.14,78,500/- which was acceded by the complainant.  In Ex.A1 the works required to be attended by the Opposite Parties are incorporated and there is no dispute about it.  As evidenced by the Ex.A2 to A8 the Opposite Parties have received an amount of Rs.12,39,240/- out of total agreed amount of Rs.14,78,500/- by 25.01.2014 i.e., within three (3) months from the date of entering into Ex.A1 agreement.  Infact, the payment terms incorporated under Ex.A1 Agreement itself shows 50% of the total bill amount is should be released along with signing of the Agreement for commencing the design work by Opposite Parties.  30% of the bill amount shall be released after the arrival of the material at the work cite, 15% of the total bill amount shall be paid after the frame work and the balance of 5% of total bill amount after the completion of the work.  The time fixed for completion of the agreed work was 15.04.2014.  The complainant’s case is, prior to entrusting the work of renovation and interiors to the Opposite Parties he has vacated house and shifted to a rented premises but, the Opposite Parties have not maintained the pace of works as schedule and commencement of the work.  In the 1^st week of February, 2014 workers stopped coming to cite and there was total stoppage of work for 20 days.  The allegation of the complainant is Opposite Party No.2 having collected the amount from him failed to pay the wages to the workers as a result workers stopped the work at the cite.  The efforts made by him to contact Opposite Party No.2 even on phone were ended in futile and whenever the Opposite Party No.2 came into contact used to say that, he was out of station and thereafter his counsel called the Opposite Party No.2 discussing but, Opposite Party No.2 did not lift the phone.  Later Opposite Party No.2 contacted his counsel on phone and on 15.02.2014 he came to the cite and made some excuse’s and explanation for delaying the work but promised to complete the work as schedule but failed to keep up his promise and ultimately he was constrained to got issued a notice which was replied by Ex.A10 by Opposite Party No.2. 
18.        The copy of the notice said to have been got issued by the complainant is not placed on record but reply is placed on record but he has not got it marked as an exhibit.  This reply letter dated 20.04.2014 i.e., after the expiry of schedule fixed in the agreement for completion of the agreement work.
19. As against the above case of the complainant the stand of the Opposite Parties is after the approval of the floor flow plan and initial designs by the complainant work was started on 07.11.2013 and while the work was in progress the complainant called upon Opposite Party No.2 on 10.12.2013 for extension of civil works to the pent house for demolishing of existing one and constructing a new room in the place of old one on payment of additional cost and same was accepted and started the work and complete the laying of the slab on 30.12.2013.  Thereafter, the complainant asked for the second phase of the extension which includes demolition of two floors slabs, supporting walls, stair case elevation slab cutting in the South east corner of the elevation, low roof of the kitchen, lifting of debris and same was also agreed and executed these works, simultaneously along with the original work.  The complainant again asked Opposite Party No.2 for 3^rd phase of the extension of the work and gave work order to construct new slab area in the pent house which was also agreed by Opposite Party No.2 and complete it by 15.01.2014 and received the payments for all these three extensions.  Thereafter, the complainant again requested for 4^th extension of work which includes to provide space for storage by giving a low roof above the wash rooms but Opposite Party No.2 did not agree for any further extension works as his primary job was to complete the work initiated under the agreement.  The second phase of extension is a major one as it consist of demolishing of the two floor slabs stair case etc. It is also the case of the Opposite Parties that, they were informed by the complainant before signing the agreement that, there are no rows and columns to the building for which demolishing was to be done in a professional manner using methods of civil engineering under the supervision of civil engineers.  The Vaastu consultant was required for demolishing each individually and carefully inorder to keep the structure of the old building intact. Hence, there was slow pace of work initially but when the work was started for new footings for the columns to be raised in the empty back yard of the building the engineers supervising the work have noticedd there are rows and columns for the building and same was brought to the notice of the complainant and the expressed the positive approach in speeding the work by the Opposite Parties.    After noticing the rows and columns in the existing building they raised the four columns and completed the first and second floor slab extension.  Simultaneously, in ground floor walls were demolished for the master bed room, children bed room, Parents bed room wall extension,   kitchen, Pooja room, living room, dining room and constructed new walls but the complainant failed to remove the furniture from the cite though it was obstructing the continuation of the work and there was delay of 10 to 15 days on the part of the complainant to remove the furniture.  Thus, this version of the extension of the works entrusted to the Opposite Parties is not denied by the complainant in his evidence affidavit.
20. It is pertinent to bear in mind that the complainant has not mentioned about entrustment of additional works to the Opposite Parties after commencement of the agreement work.  Though the complainant had agreed to pay the amount for the additional works and infact paid it when the works were done he ought to have mentioned the same in the complaint.  As could be seen from the details of the extension work enumerated by the Opposite Parties, it is a major work as it consist of demolition of the slab walls and low roof etc., and thereafter raising of new columns which normally requires time.  While attending the extension works entrusted one cannot expect that interior works shall go simultaneously along with the extension works.  It is common knowledge that, the work relating to interiors will commence only after the completion of civil works. All the extensions works given by the complainant consists of civil works.  As such, this Forum is unable to fallen line with the submission of the complainant that, inspite of extension work entrusted by him the Opposite Parties have to completed the entire renovation and interior works as schedule under the agreement.
21. The complainant version is that, the Opposite Parties having collected major part of the amounts failed to make payments to the workers and as a result, workers stopped to come to the cite and that the Opposite Parties was not available even on phone to his counsel to record discuss about the work is to be true nothing prevented him to issue a legal notice through his counsel rather than making an attempt to reach the Opposite Party No.2 on phone.  It is pertinent to bear in mind that, it is the Opposite Parties who got issued a letter under Ex.A10 on 15.03.2014 explaining the reasons of additional works entrusted and works carried till then and that, the balance work was entrusted to some third parties who were seen at the site on 03.03.2014.  The addressing of Ex.A10 letter is within 12 days from the date of witnessing the third party workers attending the balance work and if really the complainant has not entrusted the work to third party without discussing with the Opposite Party No.2 there was no need for the Opposite Party No.2 he would have not addressed Ex.a10 letter.  If really he has not entrusted to the third party workers he should have to asked the Opposite Parties to complete the balance work in a given time instead of asking to refund the amount with interest @ 36%.  Ex.A12 photographs appears to have taken on 17.03.2014 showing incomplete civil works which appears to be extension entrusted by the complainant.  The claim of the Opposite Parties is they have completed the 90% of the work, only 10% of the balance work is left but exhibited photographs covered by Ex.A12 does not supports it.  By seeing the photographs it appears that, the Opposite Parties have done the civil works and extension works and not interiors by 15.03.2014 there was no completion of the 90% of the work as claimed by them.  At the same time it is to bear in mind that, the Opposite Parties were engaged in attending the additional works while the other works in progress.  The complainant instead of asking the Opposite Parties to refund the amount with interest should have given some more time to complete the works by the Opposite Parties.  For reasons best known to him he was chosen to initiate the proceedings. By seeing totality facts and circumstances, the Opposite Parties did not complete the work of 90% work but they collected the 86% of the amount.  The amount received by the Opposite Parties is excessive of work done at cite.  The Opposite Parties could not complete the work as schedule because entrustment of the major civil work by the complainant during the same time, for which the Opposite Parties have received the amount which fact is not disputed. 
22.    In the light of it this Forum is of the view that, the Opposite Parties shall refund half of the amount received from the complainant which comes to Rs.6,14,500/- with interest there on @ 12% p.a., from 15.04.2014 till the date of payment.  Accordingly the point is answered.                          
23. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.6,14,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 15.01.2014 till the date of payment within one month from the date of service of this order.  The complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint.  

        Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 1^st day of October, 2018.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 PW1                                                                                              DW1

Sri Aashish Sirigiri                                                                    Mr. RAFAL K.JOSEPH

Managing Director of Ops.1 & 2 Co.,

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 is original of Agreement for renovation and interior works dt.23.10.2013.   

Ex.A2 to 9 is originals of Payment receipt vouchers issued by the Ops., dt.18.10.2013 to 25.01.2014 (8Nos.).  

Ex.A10 is copy of Printed copy of email sent by OP.No.2 to complainant along with CD, dt.15.03.2014.

Ex.A11 is copy of Printed copy of email sent by complainant to OP.No.2 along with CD, dt.20.04.2014.

Ex.A12 is originals of Bunch of photographs of the house, dt.17.03.2014. 

Exs filed on behalf of the Opposite parties

Ex.B1 : Bunch of receipt copies in various dates.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT