Order No.    17   Dated  24/08/2016.

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant placed an order for modular kitchen to o.p. for his residence. The complainant confirmed the o.p. and paid 50% advance through an account payee cheque and after receiving the said cheque the o.p. issued a receipt to that effect. Before installation of the said modular kitchen in the residence of the complainant, the complainant wanted to have the documents like specification, drawing, warranty, etc. and a phone number was given by the o.p. which was found false. Subsequently, the complainant tried to contact the o.p. but the complainant was assured that the material was ready and will be delivered within a shortwhile but nothing was done on the part of the o.p.

            Being dissatisfied with the business deal of o.p. the complainant had to wait for some period and ultimately he did the work of modular kitchen by engaging another agency. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for 50% of the amount paid by him and also for damages.

            O.p. contested the case by filing w/v whereby it was denied that there was any delay on the part of o.p. and the kind of interior decoration job requires lot of skill and finishing work which has to be done with lot of precision and patience. In such kind of job 10-15 days variation in delivery schedule is very much acceptable and after the material was ready the complainant was informed on 1.10.13 with the request to pay the balance of 40% of the order value but the complainant confirmed the said proposal, but subsequently rejected the deal and refused to pay 40% of the total amount and accordingly, o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p.

            On the basis of the materials on record the only point is to be decided whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.    

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            The complainant conducted the case by himself and stated that he placed an order to o.p. and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement he paid Rs.32,500/- towards the advance payment and in spite of repeated requests to o.p. the work was not completed for erection of the modular kitchen in his residence. Subsequently the complainant had to make the modular kitchen through different agency and accordingly, the complainant prayed for return of the amount paid by him towards the advance payment and also the cost and compensation.

            The o.p. in the w/v as well as by filing different documents agreed that he was ready to erect the modular kitchen in the residence of the complainant but due to some technical skill requires for such work some delay was committed for which the o.p. cannot be given blame for not fulfillment the contract held between the complainant and o.p. The o.p. has also stated that as per the specification of the work he procure the materials and ultimately the complainant did not response to the o.p’s message for payment of the 40% of the balance amount the work could not be executed. Considering all these aspects it was stated by the o.p. that he cannot be blamed for doing any deficiency in service on his part and as sucy, the o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that for the erection of modular kitchen in the residence of the complainant an agreement was entered into between the complainant and o.p. and o.p. received Rs.32,500/- from the complainant for execution of the said work. Due to some technical problem or for non procuring of the materials within the short period though the o.p. claimed that he collected the materials for execution of the work and since the complainant had done the work in the mean time, therefore we must hold that there was some misunderstanding between the parties for which the work could not be executed. From the materials on record it is crystal clear that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.32,500/- and o.p. also tried to fulfill the contract for execution of work but some delay was committed due to technical reasons but the complainant without waiting for the same he refused to accept the proposal of the o.p. for some delay, ultimately the complainant did the work with the help of some agency. Therefore, from the materials on record we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. since the complainant paid the amount of Rs.32,500/- the said amount complainant is entitled to get from the o.p. in view of the said facts and circumstances of the case and since o.p. no.1 also purchased some materials for the execution of the said work, he also sustained some loss therefore we do not find it necessitate to impose any further loss upon the o.p. by imposing unnecessary cost upon him.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.636/2013 is allowed on contest without cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.32,500/- (Rupees thirty two thousand five hundred) only towards advance payment paid by complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.