By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is as follows: -

1.         The complainant and her husband constructed a house in Veliyamkode village, Eramangalam Amsom desom in Ponnani Taluk in a property with an extend of 14.897 cent lands.  The husband of the complainant is working abroad. The complainant was managing the construction work of house and also the allied affairs. Meanwhile the opposite parties approached the complaintn and her husband for the interior designing and work therein. The third opposite party approached the complainant and her husband and introduced the first opposite party institution at Trissur. Thereafter all the opposite parties came to the residence of the complainant and detailed the interior design work and the quality of their work.  The opposite parties issued quotation to the complainant misleading the facts.   The complainant demanded the opposite parties to use quality materials for the interior work.  Accordingly, on 27/09/2015 the quotation was given for Rs.7,90,000/-.

2.         As per the quotation the works were entrusted for false sealing, painting, novelex light, crockery cabinet, wash counter, LCD unit with paneling, wardrobe, living area paneling, first bed room paneling ground floor, second bed room paneling ground floor, first bed room paneling first floor, second bed room paneling first floor and kitchen etc.  As per the quotation the said amount of Rs.7,90,000/- was agreed to pay through instalments. The first instalment was 40% in advance, thereafter false sealing completion agreed to pay 30% i.e., 2,37,000/- and thereafter completion of carpentry work 15 % i.e., Rs.1,18,500/- and the balance amount 10% i.e., Rs.79,000/-after painting and polish work and the entire balance amount Rs.39,500/- will be paid after completion of work.  Accordingly, the advance amount of Rs.3,16,000/- was given to the opposite parties.

3.         It was agreed to start the work on 01/10/2015 and work should be finished on 01/12/2015 was the terms between the complainant and opposite parties.  The complainant submit that they paid the agreed amount and also an amount of Rs.75,000/- in addition.  The complainant submits that the entire amount was paid to the opposite parties through cheque and cash. But the opposite parties finished the work only end of 2016. The husband of the complainant was abroad during the relevant period. Hence the complainant then and there informed all the defects of the work to the opposite parties. But all the occasions the opposite parties assured that there will not be any issue and everything will be all right. But at the same time the complainant alleges the opposite parties used substandard quality materials for the work. The same had brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant. 

4.         It is submitted due to the delayed completion of the work, the complainant could organize house warming only during 2018 January. But when the complainant and the family started to reside in the house it was started to broke down various interior works done by the opposite parties. The complainant herself tried to rectify the defects but later it came to know the same was impossible to do by the complainant herself. Hence the complainant contacted the opposite parties and they initially rectified the defects but subsequently they evaded the telephone calls of the complainant while tried to contact to inform the defects. On examination interior work through the expert, it could find that the opposite party used substandard material and they are not at all lasting product.   Then the complainant contacted the opposite parties and demanded to   remove   the defective materials. But they directed the complainant to remove the same and they assured to bear the expenses.  The complainant submit that she incurred nearly 10,000/- rupees for removing the defective interiors. The complainant submit that she suffered a loss of rupees more than 10 lakh due to the defective work of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays for the refund of Rs.7,90,000/- as the cost of the product and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also RS.1,10,000/- for the repairs work and the incidental expenses.

5.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The third opposite party did not appear and so name called and set exparte.

6.         The opposite parties one and two are specifically denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. It is submitted the complaint is time barred one and only to   mean harassment of the opposite parties.

7.         The opposite parties submitted that they are not aware of third opposite party who is incorporated in the complaint is an imaginary person only for the purpose of this complaint. The opposite parties did not engage any agent as alleged in the complaint.

8.         The opposite party submitted that they never mis lead the complainant and not cheated the complainant. The allegation that the opposite parties approached the complainant and her husband on 27/09/2015 and thereby managed quotation from the complainant is absolutely baseless. The opposite parties never received any amount from the complainant as per the   quotation dated 27/09/2015. 

9.         The opposite parties alleged that the complainant filed this complaint hiding the real facts. The complaintn willfully concealed the fact of agreement executed by the husband of the complainant. The original agreement is with the complainant and the copy is with the opposite party. It is denied the allegation that the complainant met an additional expense of Rs.75,000/-. It is also submitted that the opposite parties never received any additional amount. It is denied the work of the opposite parties were defective one. It is admitted that the entire interior work was completed as per the agreement dated 10/06/2016.

10.       The opposite parties submitted that the allegation of complainant that due to delay in completion of the work they were constrained to postpone the house warming nearly two years that the construction work was defective one that there were several damages that the engineer inspected the work and found that the work and material were substandard etc.

11.       The opposite parties denied the averment that the complainant called the opposite parties   and at that time it was advised to remove the defective   articles and assured the payment of the same to the complainant by the opposite parties etc. There was no as such communication between complainant and opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated in the complaint. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the complaint is baseless, without any merit, legally not sustainable and to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

12.       The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and the commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C.1. The documents on the side opposite parties marked as Ext. B1.  Ext. A1 is copy of quotation.  Ext. B1 is copy of agreement.

13.       Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents.  The following points arise for consideration-

1) Whether the complainant has got locus standi to file this complaint?.

2) Whether there is deficiency in service?.

3) Relief and cost?.

14.       Point No.1

             The complaint is filed by one Jazeera in the matter seeking redressal of grievance.  The first and second opposite parties filed version and affidavit contending the complainant have no locus standi to file this complaint and there is no any sort of connection between the complainant and first and second opposite parties. The complainant submitted that she is wife of Mr. Hakeem Hasainar and he is working abroad.  The complainant is managing the construction work of house and the domestic affairs. So, she has got locus standi to file this complaint. On the other hand, the opposite party contended that the complainant stands filed affidavit claiming that she is the daughter of Mr. Hakeem Hasainar. It is also submitted that there is no due authorization in the matter for the complainant to represent Mr. Hakeem Hasainar. Subsequently Mr. Hakeem Hasainar entered appearance before the Commission and filed an affidavit stating the complainant is the wife of Mr. Hakeem Hasainar and she is authorized to file this complaint before the Commission on behalf of Mr. Hakeem Hasainar. The Commission finds some facts in the submission of the opposite parties. It can be seen in the complaint the cause title reveals that Jazeera is S/o Hakeem Hasainar and in the affidavit, it is sworn as daughter of Hakeem Hasainar. Hence the Commission treat the same as irresponsible drafting of complaint and affidavit. But in the light of affidavit filed by MR. Hakeem Hasainar, we accept the claim of the complainant that she is wife of Hakeem Hasainar and she was authorized to file this complaint for and on behalf of Mr. Hakeem Hasainar.  Hence there is no merit in the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant have no locus standi to file this complaint but the complainant has got authority to file the present complaint and we answer the first point accordingly.

15.       Point No.2

            The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party is the proprietor of the   born marrow institution and the second opposite party is the manager of the same and the third opposite party is the agent of the same. The third opposite party approached the complainant and her husband and introduced about first opposite party and thereafter all the opposite parties approached the complainant at the residence of the complainant and induced about the interior design and requested to entrust the interior work to the opposite parties. Accordingly the complainant accepted quotation Ext. A1 to do the interior work for Rs.7,90,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the materials was directed to use quality one and the work is to be carried out within a short span of time and there was   understanding to pay the consideration amount as instalments in accordance with the progress of work.  The complainant submits that the amount as per the term was given to the opposite parties but the complainant incurred additional expense of Rs.75,000/-. More over the work was not completed as agreed. In addition to that the entire work was defective one and there by contacted opposite parties to rectify the defect and ultimately to remove the defective portion of the work. At that time the opposite party instructed the complainant to remove the defective articles and undertook to meet the expense by the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties did not care do so and it is submitted the entire work of interior done by the opposite party was with inferior quality materials and so almost all the work are in a dilapidated condition.  Hence the prayer of the complainant to refund the amount paid to the opposite parties i.e Rs.7,90,000/-and also cost and compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-.

16.       The complainant produced Ext. A1 to prove the quotation given by the opposite parties. Subsequently the complainant availed the service of the expert Commission to examine the defects of the construction work.  The Assistant engineer PWD building section Ponnani inspected the disputed interior work done by the opposite parties and filed a report before the Commission. The Commission report stands marked as Ext. C1. The commissioner reported that “a quality material will last a lot and durable. But the material used at site is of low quality and it leads to the damage of work”. The Commission also produced   copy of 10 photographs of the interior work to show the defects. The report and the photographs substantiate that the product used by the opposite parties were low quality one and there is material defects to the interior work.

17.       The first and second opposite parties stoutly opposed the contention of the complainant that the third opposite party is the agent of first second opposite parties.  The complainant has not produced any document to show any connection between the complainant, the first and second opposite parties with the third opposite party. In the absence of proper documents we cannot hold that the third opposite party was the agent of first and second opposite parties.  The first and second opposite parties further submitted that the complainant concealed the agreement executed between the opposite parties and   Mr. Hakeem. The first and second opposite parties produced Ext. B1 photo copy of the agreement executed between the opposite parties one and two and Mr. Hakeem. It can be seen that as per Ext. B1 the agreement is executed between Mr. Hakeem and the opposite parties one and two to carry out work of the house of Mr. Hakeem.  There is specific illustration regarding the work and also the payment schedule.  The said document is executed dated 10/06/2016, but there is no stipulation to carry out the entire work within any stipulated period. But the averments in Ext. A1 and B1 are almost same. So it can be seen that the first and second opposite parties undertook to carryout interior work of the house as claimed in the complaint as per terms Ext. A1 and B1.

18.       The complainant submitted that there is delay in execution work and the product was inferior in quality. It is also submitted that the opposite parties had agreed to pay the expenses for removing the defective   portion of the interior work. But there is no evidence to establish the contentions except the product was inferior quality as reported by the expert commissioner. He has not assessed the cost of the construct work or the cost of the expected repair work of the defective interior work. So there is no substantive documents for the claim of complainant. The opposite parties one and two contended that the commissioner even did not inform the opposite parties at the time of inspection. There is no mentioning of the same in the commission report also. Hence the contention to the opposite parties is relevant one.

19.       Apart from all above, the fact remains that the product used by the first and second opposite parties are with inferior quality and there is considerable defects to the interior work. The commission’s report and the photographs attached therein reveals the same.  It is right to hold the complainant   invested Rs.7,90,000/- for the interior work which is not a merger amount. But within short span of time the interior work found defective and thereby caused lot of inconvenience and hardship and mental agony to the complainant. No doubt, the complainant might have contacted the opposite parties as stated by the complainant.  But the opposite parties are silent about the same. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.

20.       In the light of above fact circumstances we find the complainant is entitled for a reasonable amount as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side opposite parties.  At the same time there is no sufficient document to establish that the complainant   sustained loss of Rs. 7,90,000/- and thereby she is entitled to refund the same along with compensation and cost of Rs.1,20,000/-. We consider Rs.1,50,000/- will be a reasonable amount to rectify the defect of the interior works done by the opposite parties.   We also allow Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant is also entitled Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

21.       It can be seen that there is no specific allegation and document to establish the responsibility of third opposite party in the matter. Hence, we find the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay the cost and compensation to the complainant.

In the light of above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows: -

1. The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant towards the repair work of defective interior work done by the first and second opposite parties.
2. The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the compliant.
3. The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The  first and second opposite parties are directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of order to till date of payment

Dated this 27^th day of November, 2023.

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1

Ext.A1: Copy of quotation. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1

Ext.B1: Copy of agreement.

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member