IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BELAGAVI.
Dated this 26th May 2022
Complaint No.56/2018
Present: 1) Shri. Rachappa K. Talikoti, President
2) Smt. S.S.Kadrollimath Member
-***-
Complainant/s:
Smt. Draxayani N. Upari,
Age:68 yrs, Occ:Retired Person
R/o: Plot No.13, Mathoshree Nilaya,
Raghavendra Colony, Khasbhag,
(Karnataka State).
(By Sri. S.L.Karale, Adv.)
Vs.
Opponent/s:
- Shri. Chandrashekhar Guruji
R/o: CJ Parivar, EL-86,
TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape,
Navi Mumbai-400701
(Maharashtra State)
- The Branch Manager,
CJ Parivar IInd Floor,
Opposite to Indira Glass House,
(Karnataka State).
(Op No.1 & 2 by Sri.R.B.Rawoot, adv)
(Order dictated by Shri. Rachappa K. Talikoti, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 praying to directing the ops to pay amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 26.02.2016 till date and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
2) It is case of the complainant that she came across a Television Program on Kannada TV Channel in which the op No.1 was the guest. In the said program the op No.1 stated that the personal, financial, property disputes can be easily rectified or solved by using his techniques of Vastu Shastra.
3) The complainant was facing some problems like her son’s marriage, financial problems etc. She believed the statement/advertisement of the op made in the program and she made a call to Toll Free No.9448286758. At the time she was informed that a person from op firm/company Saral Vaastu would visit the house of complainant.
4) On 26.02.2016, one Mr. Anand an Executive/expert from Saral Vaastu visited the house of complainant and made a through survey of both inside and outside of the house of complainant. He assured that proper guidance/consultation will be given by the op No.1. He charged Rs.15,000/- from complainant for Vasstu Materials namely 1 Bell, 1 wealth box, 1 turtle statue and 4 posters. The complainant paid that amount to the said executive/agent of the op No.1. Thereafter, Mr. Anand then proceeded to place these materials in different corners and places of complainant’s house and informed to complainant that within 2-3 months, the complainant will see the changes due to the materials and guidance of op. He also handed over a bond No.116389 signed by op No.1.
5) Mr. Anand of op asked to complainant to place 5 mirrors in different corners of house. The complainant purchased 5 mirrors and placed in different place of the house and spent Rs.15,000/-for the purchase of the mirrors. She waited for more than 3 months, but she did not get any relief from her problems. Therefore, she called the op No.1 and informed that her problems were not resolved. No satisfactory reasons were given by the op No.1. Since then complainant was trying to contact op but no satisfactory answers received. The complainant has spent her hard money believing the words of op No.1. Op No.1 and 2 have systematically embezzled and cheated the complainant, there is deficiency in service for the money paid to op No.1 and 2. A legal notice was issued to the ops and evasive reply is given. Hence, the complaint is filed.
6) The Op No.1 and 2 have appeared through advocate and op No.1 has filed his objections and op No.2 has filed memo adopting objections. The averments of the complaint are denied. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
7) The op firm provides consultancy services to its clients in the brand name “Saral Vasstu”. The complainant entered into a contractual relation with the Firm on 23.02.2016 by duly filling a registration form which contains the terms and conditions. The Op No.1 is a dignified and respectable Civil Engineer who established an organization that gives consultancy bases upon Modern Engineering Science on the platform of ancient Indian Vastushatra. It is not a hoax or magical remedy. The concept of Saral Vaastu helps anyone to organize the homes and work places properly, pleasantly. If a house or work place is violating any principle of vastu, then there is a vastu dosha and there is remedy under saral vaastu.
8) Normally, it takes about 3 to 8 months to notice the benefits of Saral Vaastu. The Representative of the Op firm Mr. Anand has visited the house of complainant at her request, done the analysis of the house of the complainant and problems faced by the complainant. Thereafter representative had informed the complainant that if she opts for the services of the firm, then she has to 100% implement as per the suggestions of the representatives. The complainant has accorded her confirmation and accordingly the Firm had provided her service on 27.02.2016.
9) As part of services, firm suggested to complainant to install mirrors on the doors of toilet and bathroom and either have access by the stair case from outside the house or install mirror adjacent to the said stair case, constructed inside the house. The representative of the firm had also given some materials to the complainant as part of their services, namely bell, wealth vase, crystals, compass, crystal bracelet etc.
10) After one month of the services one Mr. H.C. Maned of the representative of the firm visited the house, but in order to check and verify that all the suggestions were completely implemented by the complainant. He found that complainant did not implement few suggestions as recommended by the firm. It was highlighted in the implementation check list (ICV) form dated 25.03.2016. Since, the complainant has failed to 100% implement the suggestions, complainant did not get any relief of her problems. Therefore, the firm is not obligated to refund the consultancy charges. The rest of the allegations made by the complainant are all denied. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.
11) The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and produced the documents, the original bond, the copy of notice issued to the op, reply notice. The power of attorney holder of op No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence and produced the documents.
12) Heard argument of both sides and written argument on behalf of complainant as well as op perused the records.
13) On the basis of the above pleadings of the following the points that arises for consideration.
POINTS
- Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 18% as claimed?
- Whether there is deficiency in service by opponents?
- What order?
14) Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No. 1: In the partly Affirmative.
Point No. 2: In the Affirmative.
Point No. 3: As per final Order for the following:-
:: REASONS ::
15) Point No.1 and 2: The discussion is likely to overlap and therefore both the points are taken up together for determination.
16) In order to substantiate her case, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and stated that she had taken service from the op of Saral Vaastu to get remedy for her problems of finance and marriage of her son. She has stated that inspite of carrying out the instruction as per op and paying Rs.15,000/- towards consultation fee and by spending Rs.15,000/- towards the materials, she did not get any relief and there is deficiency in service of ops and as such her amount should be refunded. She has produced the copy of legal notice, reply notice, original bond issued by the op.
17) The power of attorney holder of op has stated in the affidavit evidence that there is contract entered into between the complainant and op. The complainant has not 100% implemented suggestions issued by the ops and therefore the complainant may not have received the benefit of the saral vaastu. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service. The copy of registration form, implementation check/visit form are produced.
18) The registration form produced by the complainant makes it clear that the complainant has voluntarily agreed to have the services of saral vaastu from ops. The complainant in her affidavit has stated she did not get the desired result from the Saral Vaastu technique offered by the ops. She has stated that there is deficiency in service. The op in their objections has contended that one of its representative of the firm Mr. Anand visited the house of complainant, as done the analysis of the house in order to predict the short falls in vaastu of house of the complainant and problems being faced by the complainant. It also stated that only when complainant comes up with 100% implementation of the suggestions the desired result can be had in 3 to 8 months.
19) From the affidavit evidence and contentions of the ops it is clear that the complainant opted for the Saral Vaastu on seeing the tv program. This statement of complainant makes it clear that she believed in Saral Vaastu. The said Saral vaastu is ancient traditional form of architecture in India which could bring some changes in the life of certain persons. Having believed in such Shastra the complainant had approached the ops.
20) It is admitted fact that the op representative has visited the house of complainant and collected an amount of Rs.15,000/- and has handed over certain kit of articles with a request to place them in different portion of the house. The complainant has followed this suggestion.
21) The op has contended after one month another representative visited the house of complainant and had made some suggestion and recorded in check list. The copy of implementation check on 25.03.2016 is produced by the ops. There are several particulars under the check list and according to op some of the suggestion have not been followed and implemented by the complainant. The suggestion are relating to not following directions, not maintaining cleanliness, om bell not ringing in every corner of the house. Thereafter some extra suggestions have been made to close the balcony or to have outside stair case.
22) It may be seen even according to op several suggestions made by the ops have been implemented by the complainant including fixing mirrors. But the complainant has not got desired result. Even ops has contended in its objections that desired result have not been achieved because complainant did not implement suggestions 100% . In our view, it can be said that the complainant may not have followed all the suggestions. It can be noted that complainant has initially complied with most of the suggestions. One cannot perfectly say as to what can be implemented and what cannot be implemented.
23) The complainant has stated that she had finance problems and problem of her son’s marriage and complainant says that she did not get the desired result. Under the circumstances, we are of the view the complainant opted for the saral vaastu, but could not get benefit.
24) The complainant has produced the bond No.116389 signed by op No.1, in the said bond the technique of saral vaastu and its effect has been explained. There are solutions for the said problems and it is mentioned as should not have any suspicion in the 3rd para. It is mentioned that as under,
“MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¤ªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀiï ¥ÀjavÀjUÉ ¸ÀgÀ¼ÀªÁ¸ÀÄÛ«¤AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ zÉÆgÀQ®è JAzÀÄ CAvÀgÁ¼À¢AzÀ ºÉýzÀ°è, £ÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ §zÀÞªÁV ¸ÀgÀ¼ÀªÁ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ ªÁUÁÞ£À £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.”
25) The above statement in Kannada language is to the effect that the op No.1 promise to refund the amount received in case the person opting for saral vaastu whole heartedly states that he has not got the desired result. In our view, though it cannot be said that there is complete deficiency in service by ops, but the complainant did not get the result desired as per the suggestions of the representatives. The op No.1 has not visited the house of complainant. The suggestion have been given through their representative it is not known what is the qualification and knowledge of vaastu shatra of representative. Under the circumstances it can be said that there may be lack of understanding the problem are the situation of the house. By not informing complainant about the qualification of representative their seems to be some deficiency on the part of ops. Even according to the under taking of op No.1 in the letter given to complainant, it is stated that amount will be refunded in case the result is not obtained. In our view the complainant is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid to the ops. So far as anther amount of Rs.15,000/- spent for mirrors is concerned, we are of the view that these mirrors have been mixed in the house of complainant and complainant has also voluntarily entered for vaastu shatra and therefore she is not entitled to the expenses of mirrors. The ops are liable to pay amount of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the partly affirmative and answered the point No.2 in the affirmative.
26) Point No.3: We pass the following:
:ORDER:
The complaint is partly allowed.
The opponent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% from the date of complaint till realization of the amount.
Further the opponent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on: 26th May 2022)
