Order-20.
Date-25/05/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainants’ case in short, is that complainant no.1 has been living in Germany working as a Tool and Die designer in a very famous factory at Germany. Both the complainants are having dual citizenship (Indian and Germany) and they are husband and wife. Every year the complainants visit their home at Kolkata at their residential accommodation at Kolkata at 3rd floor of premises No.33/4, Prasanna Naskar Lane, P.S. Kasba, Kolkata – 700 039. In the month of December, 2014 while they were at Kolkata, Complainant no.1 desired to make a modular kitchen by the Godrej make apparatus which are available from M/s. Godrej Interio, an unit of OP1 Company. Complainants engaged OP3, as such, for the purposes. Mr. Sanjeeb Singh (OP.) came to visit and took an order from the house of the complainants by receiving a total advance payment and/or full payment of Rs.1,47,000/- against a receipt handwritten by him giving details of works to be done on the back-leaf of the said receipt dated 10-12-2014. Sanjeeb Singh, Store in charge of OP1 assured to complete the job within 4 weeks from 10-12-2014. He also took Rs.500/- as visiting charge. Said Sanjeeb Singh, thereafter, had sent design/sketch of kitchen within four days i.e. on or about 14-12-2014. During third week of February, 2015 two men came and broke and disordered the kitchen and left it with full of dirt whereupon the complainants had to engage extra labourer to clean such mess. It is alleged that those two unskilled people also damaged the kitchen instead of finishing their work. It is stated that the complainants had to incur expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs on account of refitting of kitchen tiles, electrical fixtures and for cementing of the walls etc. OP1 vide letter dated 21-02-2015 informed OP3 all the incidents and requested to make good the damages cost and to do the needful to complete the undone jobs as per the contract but to no good. The complainants have alleged deficiency in service against the OPs. Hence, this case.
OPs 2 and 3 have contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the instant petition of complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. It is stated that the instant petition of complaint is totally baseless, vague and vexatious one and is the product of fertile brain of the complainants for gaining something wrong. It is stated that OP Company acted properly as regards installation of modular kitchen and/or dealing in respect of the said product in question. It is also stated that there is no such staff named Sanjeeb Singh in the given address of OP1 and there is no branch or staff of this OP Company at the given address of present OP1. It is stated that one Sanjeeb Singh is designated Store In-Charge just for gaining something wrongful. It is also stated that the said address is the address of M/s. R.S. System and there is collusion in between the complainants and M/s. R.S. System. It is stated that OP Company being a reputed business organization runs a business all over the world. It is stated that OP Company found that M/s. R. S. System one of its dealer started ill practice or mal-practice towards customer and the OPs terminated the said R.S. System from its dealership and published the said termination notice in a daily circulated newspaper to inform public at large. It is stated that OP is not negligent or deficient in rendering service. It is stated that complainants have suppressed the material facts. It is stated that OP Company acted properly as regards installation of modular kitchen and the case is filed in collusion with M/s. R.S. System M/s. Sunita Fuirniture who is not also made a party in this case. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP1 has not contested the case, as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against OP1.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of receipt of M/s. R.S. System amounting to Rs.1,47,000/-, Xerox copies of photos of installation of modular kitchen, Xerox copy of letter to CEO Godrej Interio by the complainants, Xerox copy of special Power of Attorney in the name of the complainants as filed from the side of the complainants.
Seen the Xerox copy of ‘completion certificate’ filed by the OP in respect of installation of Modular Kitchen.
It is not the case of the complainants that modular kitchen was not installed at his premises at Kolkata on 3rd Floor, Premises No.33/4, Prasanna Naskar Lane, P.S. Kasba, Kolkata – 700 039. The allegation of the complainants as we find that OP1 Sanjeeb Singh had sent two persons who have broken and disordered the kitchen and left it with full of dirt whereupon the complainants had to call up extra labourers to clean such mess. It is also alleged that two unskilled people sent by Shri Sanjeeb Singh damaged the kitchen instead of finishing their work to be performed as per contract. But we are afraid no contract with OPs2 and 3 is forthcoming before us. It is also alleged that OP1 on or about 10-06-2016 engaged one M/s. Sunita Furniture of Subhasgram Petua Daspara No.3, the sole proprietor being one Santosh Halder, who billed Rs.2 lakhs to complete the works of the kitchen and to make good the damages caused by inexperienced workmen employed by OP1. We are afraid that Santosh Halder of M/s. Sunita Furniture is not made a party in this case. On the contrary from ‘completion certificate’ filed from the side OPs2 and 3 we find that the complainants rated performance on 19-12-2015 as to have ‘Met Expectations’. From the ‘completion certificate’ we also find that the installation of modular kitchen has been completed at Premises No.33/4, Prasanna Naskar Lane, Kolkata – 700 039. The said ‘completion certificate’ also bears signature of complainant no.1 with date. So, we find that the story of repairing the damaged kitchen is a subsequent one and afterthought because complainant no.1 endorsed ‘completion certificate’ on 18-12-2015. We also find that the complainant has filed a document from one Santosh Halder dated 22-02-2016 stating that he gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to Santosh Halder and M/s. Sunita Furniture. The said document does not inspire any confidence in our mind, moreso, when neither Santosh Halder nor Sunita Furniture is made a party in this case and OPs2 and 3 has alleged collusive understanding in between the complainants, OP1 and Sunita Furniture. OPs 2 to 3 M/s. Godrej Interio has also alleged that there is no such staff named Sanjeeb Singh attached to Godrej Interio and there is no branch office of this OP Company in the given address of present OP1. We find that the address of Sanjeeb Singh is the address of M/s. R.S. System and Sanjeeb Singh is allegedly designated as Store in Charge of M/s. R.S. System. We also find that OPs 2 and 3 terminated M/s. R.S. System from its dealership and also published the said termination notice in daily circulated newspaper to inform all and sundry and the said fact is not challenged by the complainants. It is given to understand that M/s. R.S. System was a dealer under OPs 2 and 3 and such dealership was terminated by OPs2 and 3 Company. Accordingly, we think that OPs2 and 3 are not bound for the activities of OP1. No privity of contract in between the complainants and contesting OPs is forthcoming before us. There is also no evidence or independent witness forthcoming before us in corroboration that the kitchen of the complainants was damaged/broken by the inexperienced men/hands deployed by OP1 as alleged by the complainants.
From the ‘completion certificate’ it appears that OP company being Godrej and Boyce installed modular kitchen and completed the job in the premises of the complainants and complainant no.1 himself endorsed his signature rating overall performance as ‘Met Expectations’. It is clear that the complainants suppressed material facts and filed the instant case. The case is nothing but abuse of process of law and as such, it deserves dismissal.
It is truism of law one who comes Court must come with clean hands.
Consequently, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs2 and 3 and ex parte against the OP1.
We make no order as to cost.
