DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:130 of 2011] Date of Institution :14.03.2011 Date of Decision : 30.03.2012 ---------------------------------------- Rangi Associates (P) Ltd. through its Project Manager Sh. Brijender Singh, SCO No.80-81-82, Second Floor, sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] S. K. Verma & Associates, Chartered Accountant, SCO No.345-346, 2nd Floor, Sector 35B, Chandigarh. [2] Sh. S. K. Verma (In person) C/o SCO No.345-346, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. H. S. Saini, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. S. K. Rishi, Advocate for the OPs along with Sh. S. K. Verma, OP No.2 in person. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Rangi Associates (P) Ltd. through its Project Manager Sh. Brijender Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To complete the job in question or refund Rs.25,000/- paid as service charges/fee etc.; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of work and expenses incurred to complete the job in question; iv) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation; 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that since 2006, it had hired the services of OPs for the following purposes: - i) preparing balance sheets and audit of accounts; ii) to file tax returns; iii) to file audit reports with the Registrar of Companies; iv) deposit tax; v) advise the complainant company in financial matters. It has further been pleaded that the complainant handed over all the records i.e. Account Books, Vouchers etc. to the OPs to prepare the balance sheet and to audit the accounts for the Financial Year 2009-2010. The complainant also paid a fee of Rs.25,000/- to the OPs for this purpose. However, according to the complainant, the OPs did not prepare the balance sheets for the Financial Year 2009-2010 nor they audit the accounts. The OPs failed to perform any of the functions for which their services were hired, as detailed above, for the Financial Year 2009-2010. Surprisingly, resignation letter dated 07.10.2010 was received from the OPs. In such circumstances, according to the complainant, it had to engage another Chartered Accountant for providing the said services and had to pay higher charges. According to the complainant, failure to provide service numerated above for the Financial Year 2009-2010 despite the fact that the OPs had received the fee (consideration for providing the services) amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, it has been asserted that the services of OPs were never hired for the Financial Year 2009-2010. In fact, the fee of Rs.25,000/- was received for the services rendered during the Financial Year 2007-2008. According to the OPs, some dispute arose between the Directors of the Company. Some of the Directors wanted the OPs to give a legal opinion regarding the removal of the Director in a particular manner, which was not in accordance with law. As the OPs failed to give the opinion in accordance with the wishes of the other Directors, they became annoyed with the OPs and hence, the OPs had to submit the resignation. In these circumstances, according to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The factum of receipt of Rs.25,000/- vide Cheque No.117321 dated 11.05.2010 has been admitted. Annexure C-2 is the Receipt executed by the OPs. From bare perusal of this receipt, it is apparent that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was received by the OPs in full and final settlement, meaning thereby, the OPs were not required to do any job after issuance of this receipt. All the accounts in between the parties stood settled on that day. So, the stand taken by the complainant to the effect that fee of Rs.25,000/- was paid for the services to be rendered for the Financial Year 2009-2010 does not appear to be plausible. Furthermore, Annexure R-1 is the chart showing the audit fee payable. From this document, it is apparent that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was received by the OPs against the fee for the Financial Year 2007-2008 and in nutshell, a sum of Rs.19,854/- remained outstanding against the complainant. Thus, the averments made in the written statement stand corroborated by this chart. Even in the balance sheets [Annexure R-4 ], the outstanding fee for the Financial Year 2007-2008 is shown to be Rs.25,197/-. In these circumstances, from the material on record, it has been duly proved that the amount of Rs.25,000/- received by the OPs was the outstanding fee for the Financial Year 2007-2008 and the OPs did not receive any fee for providing services for the Financial Year 2009-2010. 6. In these circumstances, to our mind, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 7. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th March, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.130 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 22.03.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 30.03.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
