JUDGEMENT

          Complainant the Director of a private limited company registered under the Companies’ Act 1952 having its office at 79B, Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata-700014 presently at 13C, Haralal Das Street, P.S.-Entally, Kolkata – 700014 the main contention of op involving a business of interior designer and complainant after acquiring a property at its present address i.e. at 13C, Haralal Das Street, P.S.-Entally, Kolkata – 700014 intended to set new office and to get the same renovated and fully furnished by hiring service of a interior designer and op came to know about such intention of the complainants approached the complainant by submitting his quotation for the purpose of interior designing and decoration of the said property and in the said quotation schedule as well as terms and conditions are duly noted and complainant being so approached by the op and they have agreed with the proposal made by the op and accordingly made several payments which were received by the op and money receipt were issued by the op.

          On 30.04.2012 op placed a bill amounting to Rs.2,31,922/- after deducting Rs.13,56,000/- which was admitted to have already paid out of total bill raised to the tune of Rs.15,87,922/- and by that letter complainant was asked to pay the due amount within 10 days failing which residual works would not be done.  Complainant after going through the bill dated 30.04.2012 noticed some anomalies in the same and accordingly by a letter dated 12.06.2012 sought clarifications from the op.  After that by letter dated 23.06.2012 complainant lodged a complaint about below standard workmanship and incomplete work specifying the nature of irregular and/or half-done and/or undone work carried out by op in the said property with a further request to complete the undone and left out work within 7 days and the said letter dated 23.06.2012 was served upon the op on 26.06.2012.  Thereafter op issued a letter on 24.06.2012 in subject “clarification of my Bill dated 30.04.2012 as demanded by you via your letter dated-nil, signed on 12.06.2012 by you” and in the said letter dated 24.06.2012 op thereby trying to justify his baseless and inflated bill dated 30.04.2012 and provided a fresh bill dated 24.06.2012 raising an demand of Rs.2,26,805/- and thereafter op by her letter dated 27.06.2012 raised her objection against the complaint on 23.06.2012 denying the allegations made therein.  It is specifically mentioned that complainant acquired the said property to set up its new office and accordingly had hired the services of the op for interior designing etc.  But due to unprofessional act and conduct of the op the premises in question got struck and could be used in entirety and as such the complainant was suffering loss and as such the complainant tried to settle the matter amicably but due to adamant and in-cooperative attitude of the op, the dispute could not be resolved.

          In spite of best effort of the complainant, thereafter complainant sent a demand notice through his Ld. Lawyer, but op again started work, raised bill without completion of the work.  So, complainant noticed serious deficiency of service on the part of the op and ultimately complainant was compelled to file this case for redressal.

On the other hand op by filing written version has submitted that the instant case is not maintainable in view of the fact that complainant is not a consumer and further no private limited company can filed such a case before this Forum and further the entire construction work was for commercial purpose and complainant intended for decoration and interior designing the said commercial complex of the complainants’ company for running the same as office. So, complainant is not a consumer and there is no question due to deficiency in service in this case and further submitted that there is no question of harassment to the complainant by op and there is no prove that there is any defect etc. and practically complainant only intention is that not to pay the balance amount for the work as filed this complaint by bringing some false allegations and at the same time there is no such warranty or anything in the said contract but the such a case can already be filed at Civil Court and further submitted that the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                         Decision with reasons

After considering the arguments as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the status of the complainant as a private limited company registered under Companies’ Act.  We are convinced to hold that the complainant is a private limited company and further complainant as per quotation for interior designing and decoration, supervision of execution &  schedule of payment with execution completion time for office dated 14.12.2011 accepted the offer of the op for interior design, decoration and after considering that quotation which was accepted by the complainant, it is found that there is no such contract how and what manner the dispute if any raised shall be resolved.  But truth is that op acted as per said quotation and fact remains that op was engaged by the complainant to carry out the interior design, decoration, supervision of execution and completion of the entire work.

But there was no warranty for that there is no such agreement how and where the said matter should be dissolved and fact remains that it was a contract on the basis of the quotation.  It was done and there is no prove before this Forum that there was any deficiency or defect or etc whatever it may be after considering the entire materials we have gathered that there is no warranty or there is not clause how the matter shall be entertained if any dispute is arisen in between the parties and at the same time it is proved that the whole service was hired by the complainant from the op no doubt on payment of money, but it was hired for interior design, decoration, supervision of execution of company’s commercial complex/office but it is not for domestic purpose and that office had been decorated and designed for the profit of the said business.

So, there is no question of maintaining their livelihood from the income of the complainant and when the complainant is himself a Director of the company.  So the entire work was done for commercial purpose and entire money have been invested for decoration, designing from the income and profit of the company.  Fact remains in the instant case cost of the decoration and interior design of the commercial complex of the company for his office from profit & loss account and balance sheet of the complainant’s company and the cost of maintenance and operation of the said office was also charged to the profit and loss account of the company and the expenses on account of maintenance and operation of the work (decoration and interior design) which are nothing but cost of the products and manufacture sold by the company.  This leaves no due whatsoever that the entire work was done for commercial purpose and as such the service of the op was hired and in this regard we have relied upon ruling reported in 1991 (1) CPJ 332 and also 145.  In the result we have convinced to hold that the present complainant is not a consumer to the op and the present complaint as filed by  the private limited company is not maintainable in the eye of law and fact remains that complainant was aware of the fact that his entire transaction is for business purpose and it was for commercial in nature.  But even them by hallucination the Forum, the complainant appeared to get relief being a merchant and company and so we are convinced to hold that the complainant filed this complaint getting some hopes from the present material truth and another factor is that complainant was aware of the fact that he is not a consumer but only harass the op to waste time of this Forum files this complaint for which we are convinced to hold that it is a vexatious complaint and only to avoid Civil Court, this complaint is filed by the dishonest merchant, the present complainant.

In the light of the above observation we are convinced that the complainant is not a consumer and the entire transaction is commercial transaction and act for commercial purpose that amount was spent for decoration and interior design of the commercial building of the company’s head office and so the present complaint is not maintainable against the op.

Thus the complaint fails.

Hence, it is

                                                   ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost against the op.

Complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and for filing a vexatious case before this Forum and that cost of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited to this Forum by the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which a specific penal action shall be taken against the complainant for realization of the same.