BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No | : | 244 of 2023 |
Date of Institution | : | 05.10.2023 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.09.2024 |
Nisha Aneja w/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar Aneja resident of #382, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Sant Sharma, #248A, Mamta Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Punjab.
2. M/s Dayal Construction Works through Proprietor Sh.Sant Sharma, 248A, Mamta Enclave, Dhakoli, Punjab.
….Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
Before: Sh.Satpal, President.
Dr.Sushma Garg, Member
Dr.Suman Singh, Member
For the Parties: Sh.J.K.Aneja, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2024.
ORDER
(Satpal, President)
1. The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are, that Sh.Sant Sharma, the opposite party no.1(hereinafter referred to as OP No.1), is the proprietor of construction firm, namely, M/s Dayal Construction Works i.e. the opposite party no.2(hereinafter referred to as OP No.2), which is engaged in the construction as well as renovation work etc. The OPs No.1 & 2 had distributed pamphlets showing different type of work undertaken by them including renovation work alongwith their contact numbers. It is stated that the complainant contacted the OP No.1 for renovation of one bathroom in her house on the ground floor for which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded by him(OPNo.1) for the entire work of renovation of the bathroom. The complainant after due consideration paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as token money to the OPs on 22.03.2022 through phonepay in the account of Sant Sharma(OP No.1) from the account of her husband’s account no. 00950002110 02192 in Punjab National Bank. It is averred that it was agreed between the complainant and the OP No.1 that the stage wise payment of the balance amount would be made as and when the work was executed by the OPs. The entire work was agreed to be finished by the end of June 2022. It is stated that the oral agreement was made on 22.03.2022 in the presence of the complainant’s husband. It is stated that the job work to be performed was inspected at the site on 22.03.2022 by the OPs and that a plumber was sent by the OPs on 23.03.2022, without any sanitary items to start the work, who had worked half heartedly. On the next day i.e. 24.03.2022, no one turned up to start the renovation work. The Ops were requested to complete the renovation work but to no avail. It is alleged that the OPs had asked the complainant in the month of June 2022 to make the additional payment of Rs.50,000/-; thus, making total expenses qua renovation work up to Rs.2,00,000/-, so, the demand as raised by the Ops for additional payment was declined by the complainant and accordingly, the Ops were asked, telephonically as well as on whatsapp, to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- as paid by her to them. The OPs have promised several times to refund the amount but the same was not refunded. A registered notice was sent by the complainant on 25.03.2023, followed by another notice dated 23.08.2023, seeking the refund of Rs.10,000/- but no positive response was received from the OPs. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs through whatsapp, which was duly received by the OPs but none has appeared on behalf of the OPs. Thus, due to non appearance of OPs, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 20.03.2024.
3. To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.
Today i.e. 24.09.2024, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record an affidavit to show that the OPs has not returned the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid to them from the saving bank account no.0095000211002192 of PNB, Sector-22D, Chandigarh. The said affidavit is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the adjudication of the case in a proper and fair manner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including written submissions/synopsis filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.
5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit (Annexure C-A) and contended that no renovation work, in the bath room of the complainant, was done by the Ops in lieu of receipt of amount of Rs.10,000/-by them from the complainant. It was argued that a plumber was sent without any sanitary items by the OPs on 23.03.2022 only and thereafter, none turned up to carry out the renovation work. It was argued that the OPs had promised several times telephonically as well as through whatsapp conversation to refund the amount but the same has not been refunded so far and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.
6. The OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2024 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant against them go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7. Evidently, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the OPs on 22.03.2022 as per Annexure C-2 & C-3. As per whatsapp conversation between the complainant and the OP No.1, it is evident that the OP No.1 had promised several times to refund the amount of Rs.6,500/- instead of Rs.10,000/- but the same was also not refunded. Even a legal notice i.e. Annexure C-5 followed by another legal notice i.e. Annexure C-8 as sent by the complainant to OPs, seeking the refund of an amount of Rs.10,000/-, also failed to evoke any response from them. In the present complaint, the OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent during the proceedings of the case despite the receipt of the notice from Commission; thus, the averments made by the complainant are unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8. As per unrebutted assertions and contentions of the complainant, the OPs had not carried out any renovation work in her bathroom in lieu of receipt of Rs.10,000/- from her. Vide affidavit Mark ‘A’, the complainant as well as her husband have stated that the Ops have not returned the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was paid to them; thus, the Ops had been deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which, they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant.
9. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-
- To pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum(simple interest) w.e.f. 22.03.2022 i.e. the date when the said payment of Rs.10,000/- was made to OPs till its actual realization.
- To pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.
10. The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced on: 24.09.2024
Dr. Suman Singh Dr.Sushma Garg Satpal
Member Member President
Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.
Satpal
President
