Date of Filing : 12.08.2022
Date of Disposal : 30.01.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.AJAYASHANKAR. B.A.,B.L., ......MEMBER-I
CC. No.167/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Mrs.D.L.Vidhya,
No.33/16, Kumaran Street,
NGO Nagar, Ponneri -601 204. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Royal Interiors Works,
Mohammed Badushah
Old No.255, New No.1108 Bazaar Street,
Kairasi Fancy Complex Street,
Minjur -601 203. …..opposite party
Counsel for the complainant : party in person.
Counsel for the opposite party : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 09.01.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and oppsite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not completing the decoration work in the complainant’s own complex at Kumbakonam along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as the designer intentionally stalled the design work and to pay a sum Rs.30,000/- as transportation charges for the goods from Chennai to Kumbakonam and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the financial loss due to non functioning of shop and to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The case of the complainant was that she has entered into an agreement with the opposite party for decorating her new fancy store namely Raja Fancy Stores at 125/12, CMDA Housing Board, Manali New Town. Out of the agreed amount of Rs.2,53,000/- the complainant had paid Rs.2,20,000/-. However as the building owner wanted to stop the decoration work the same was stopped and a plan was made to shift the said shop to the complainant’s own complex at Kumbakonam. Agreeing for the same the opposite party demanded extra transporting allowance which was accepted by the complainant. The work was stopped on 20.04.2022 and the material has been moved on 24.04.2022 to Kumbakonam by the opposite party and on repeated request it was informed that the Carpenter will start his work on 10.07.2022. Again when contacted on 10.07.2022 he requested the complainant to wait for some more time. Hence, the complainant sought for the refund of the amount for which the opposite party requested the complainant to come on 17.07.2022 to his fancy store and on that day two cash vouchers were given to the complainant to show that the entire money given by the complainant was spent and there is balance of Rs.182/- to be given by the complainant. When requested for Bills, the opposite party did not provide them. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To pay a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as the designer intentionally stalled the design work;
To pay a sum Rs.30,000/- as transportation charges of the goods from Chennai to Kumbakonam;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the financial loss due to non functioning of shop and to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A3. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice the opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 05.12.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the decoration work for the fancy store of the complainant as per the agreement dated 16.03.2022 entered between the parties has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
Interior design agreement dated16.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;
Cash memo dated 17.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
Cash memo by K.M.K. Engineering works was marked as Ex.A3;
As the complainant had appeared party in person this commission did not insist for filing of written argument. Heard the oral argument and perused the material evidences produced by her. The main grievance of the complainant is that for the amount she had paid the opposite party did not complete the work and also did not provide the bills and that though promised the opposite party did not come to Kumbakonam to complete the decoration work. Thus she sought for the complaint to be allowed.
Record shows that agreement between the parties were entered wherein the estimated cost for the designer work was fixed at Rs.2,53,000/- for an estimated built up area of not less than 360 square feet. It is also found that all the required bills and material vouchers would be submitted by the opposite party. It was the case of the complainant that as interior work could not be continued in the agreed place, it was shifted to Kumbakonam and the interior work has to be continued there. It is also her case that out of 360 square feet work agreed only 214.5 square feet work was completed by the opposite party. Further the returned good value of glass materials for 373 square feet was only Rs.22,000/-. The value paid for completed sheet work was Rs.45,000/- for 373 square feet. The carpenter removal labour for a mere two hours work was only Rs.5,000/-. On considering the nature of dispute and claim involved this commission is of the view that the complaint involves complicated issued requiring recording of evidence in an elaborate manner. In the Consumer Commission the complaint is tried summary manner and hence the present complaint could not be adjudicated. Thus, on mere allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had done only for partial work, not provided bills and not done work as per payment and not completed the remaining work we could not held opposite party liable for deficiency in service. Further there is no proof to show that the opposite party had agreed to continue the work from 125/12, CMDA Housing Board, Manali New Town to Kumbakonam. In the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the present complaint is devoid of evidence and could not be entertained by us. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, she is not entitled any relief as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party. The complainant is at liberty to approach any competent Civil Court for redressing her grievance. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of January 2023.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 16.03.2022 Interior design agreement. Xerox
Ex.A2 17.07.2022 Cash memo Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Cash memo by K.M.K.Engineering works. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:
Nil
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
