DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 30/2023
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
06.02.2023 07.02.2023 29.08.2024
Complainant/s:- | (1) Sri Pradip Kumar Roy, son of Late Sri Dhirendra Nath Roy, residence of Flat no. E/6/302, Peerless Nagar, 27, B.T Road, Sodepur, North 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas, Panihati Post Office, Khardah Police Station, Kolkata 700114; (2)Srimati Ratna Roy, wife of Sri Pradip KumarRoy, residence of Flat no. E/6/302, Peerless Nagar, 27. B.T Road, Sodepur, North 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas, Panihati Post Office, Khardah Police Station, Kolkata 700114. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | (1) Shree Balaji Interior Company, having its registered office at T/19, Teghoria Main Road, PO Hatiara, PS Baguiati, Kolkata 700157 (2)Sri Subhadip Pal, proprietor of Shree Balaji Interior Company, residence of Spring 302, Narayanpur, Siddha Town, Rajarhat, Rajarhat S.O., PS Rajarhat Kolkata 700136 |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainants above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to refund the duplicate key to the Complainants, complete the incomplete work worth of Rs. 3,15,000/- or refund Rs. 3,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 6%, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, litigation cost and other reliefs.
They alleged that as per their proposal O.Ps were agreed to do interior decoration in the flat of the Complainants and total cost was assessed Rs. 18,13,300/- and out of the said amount Complainants paid Rs. 16,66,000/- but inspite of receipt of the said amount O.Ps not yet completed the work. O.Ps kept pending some work worth of Rs. 3,15,000/-. Hence, the Complainants filed this case.
Inspite of service of notice O.Ps not yet appeared in this case nor filed W/V. Case is running ex-parte against O.P No. 2 vide order no. 6 dated 14/08/2024.
Case is also running ex-parte against O.P No. 1 vide order no. 9 dated 24/08/2024.
Decisions with reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainants. affidavit – in – chief filed by the Complainants, BNA filed by the Complainants.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants at length.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: :2: :
C.C. No. 30/2023
On perusal of document dated 06/06/2022 we find that cost of the total project was assessed Rs. 18,13,300/-.
On perusal of document dated 15/11/2022 we find that Complainants by the said letter alleged before the O.P No. 1 & 2 that entire work has not yet been completed. It has been further alleged that O.P No. 1 & 2 kept pending some work worth of Rs. 3,15,000/-.
On perusal of reply e-mail of O.P No. 1 & 2 w find that they were agreed to complete the pending work by 18/10/2022 and also agreed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-.
We have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainants which is nothing but unchallenged testimony.
Placing reliance upon the aforesaid affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainants we find that Complainants alleged that O.P No. 1 & 2 kept pending some work worth of Rs. 3,15,000/-.
In the present case O.P No. 1 & 2 not yet appeared nor filed W/V. as a result we did not get any chance to hear them on the point of dispute.
In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C, First Appeal No. 925 of 2017(M/S. SINGLA BUILDERS & PROMOTERS LTD. Vs. AMAN KUMAR GARG) dated 13/05/2016, we find that Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C held:-
“the non-filing of the Written Version to the complaint before the State Commission, amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them in the consumer complaint.”
In view of the aforesaid discussion, materials on record, affidavit-in-chief of the Complainants and in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C we find that O.Ps have kept pending some work regarding interior decoration of the flat of the Complainants worth of Rs. 3,15,000/- and they not yet handed over the duplicate key of the aforesaid flat.
We also find that aforesaid act of the O.Ps are nothing but deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
On perusal of record we find that Complainants are the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainants have able to established their grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly Complainants are entitled to relief as per their prayer.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: :3: :
C.C. No. 30/2023
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is,
Ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./30/2023 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.Ps in favour of the Complainants.
O.P No. 1-2 jointly or severally are directed to complete the pending interior decoration work of the flat of the Complainants worth of Rs. 3,15,000/- (three lakh fifteen thousand) or to pay Rs. 3,15,000/- (three lakh fifteen thousand) in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from this day failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from this day to till the date of actual payment and Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P No. 1-2 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
