DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 15th February 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 71/ 2013
Dr. D. Seshasayana, S/o Late Bangaraiah,
aged 52 years, H.No. 4/197, Nehru Road,
Proddatur town, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Sri M. Srinivas, S/o not known, aged 30 years,
Sri Sai Interior Contractors, 8-1-84/3, Mailardevpally,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 005. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 11-02-2014 in the presence of V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate, for complainant and respondent called absent and set exparte on 28-1-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The respondent being Interior decorators at Hyderabad under the name and style as “Sri Sai Interior contractors” approached the complainant, who is a Doctor at Proddatur having an apartment in Preethi Apartments bearing No. 405, near TVR Public School, behind Gopavaram Grama Panchayat, Housing board Proddatur town and promised to provides services i.e. to fix Aluminum wall drops and kitchen cabinet etc., and there by the respondent took an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in his house at Proddatur on 13-3-2013. The respondent issued a quotation dt. 12-3-2013 to the complainant at Prodatur by endorsing the advance taken by him from the complainant. Later the complainant came to know that the respondent has not been providing proper services and has been miss-calculating the measurements and claiming the rates very high. So the complainant telephoned the respondent about the work promised by him. The respondent had given evasive answers and did not start the work. As the complainant pressed the respondent about the work he had given reckless answers and agreed to return the advance amount to the complainant.
3. In spite of repeated requests and reminders made by the complainant did not return the advance amount so far. The respondent sent messages to the complainant’s cell phone that the advance amount will be returned with in short time. Bu the respondent did not return it. The respondent did not answering the call made by the complainant. Thus respondent mentally harassed the complainant by his activities. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 27-5-2013 to the respondent demanding him to return the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a.. The respondent managed the postal people and got it returned the registered postal cover. The complainant being a doctor unable to concentrate on his profession as the respondent mentally harassed him by his activities. So the complainant is claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages against the respondent. The cause of action arose on 13-3-2013 when the respondent took an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in his house at Proddatur as advance to provide services i.e. to fix aluminum wall drops and kitchen cabinet etc., and issued a quotation dt. 12-3-2013 to the complainant at Proddatur by endorsing the advance taken by him from the complainant and on when the complainant came to know that the respondent is not providing proper services and has been miss calculating the measurements and claiming the rates very high and on when the complainant telephoned the respondent about the work promised by him and in turn the respondent had given evasive answers and did not start the work and when the complainant pressed the respondent about the work and given reckless answers and agreed to return the advance amount to the complainant and on in spite of repeated requests and reminders made by the complainant the respondent did not return the advance amount so far and on when the respondent sent message to the complainants cell phone that the advance amount will be returned with short time but did not return it and the respondent did not answering the calls made by the complainant and on 27-5-2013 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the respondent demoing him to return the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a. and on when the respondent managed the postal people and got it returned the registered postal cover and on such other and further dates at Proddatur where cause of action arise for the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum. Therefore the complainant prays the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the respondent to return the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a. and to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages and to direct the respondent to pay costs and complaint and other reliefs as the Hon’b le Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. The respondent called absent and set exparte on 28-1-2014.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
ii. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent?
iii. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the complainant PW1 was examined and Ex. A1 to A4 were marked.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. According to the complaint, it was an admitted fact that the respondent issued a quotation on item and description. Ex. A1 was Photostat copy of quotations, dt. 12-3-2013. In Ex. A1 clearly mentioned that aluminum waldrops was supplying and fixing of aluminum wall drops with ACP glass type sliding doors, any color epoxy powder coated aluminum doors farms with aluminum, quantity 400 sft. Rs. 700/- totaling Rs. 2,80,000/- and kitchen cabinet, with aluminum door with ACP sheet under kitchen cabinet with water proof ply etc., 150 quantity Rs. 950/- totaling Rs. 1,42,500/- and the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/-, dt. 13-3-2013 towards advance to the respondent. After receiving the amount the respondent has not provided any services and also gave evasive replies to the complainant. The complainant vexed with the attitude of the respondent and issued legal notice to the respondent on 27-5-2013. It was Ex. A2. The complainant had not received any reply from the respondent. The PW1 was deposed that the respondent issued quotation for Rs. 3,30,000/- and the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- towards advance on 13-3-2013 and also the respondent signed twice in the said quotation and the respondent failed to perform his part of contract. The PW1 has stated that, he suffered a lot and not concentrating his profession as a doctor and also repeated the same words as stated in the complaint. After filing the complaint in the Hon’ble Forum the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards part payment to the complainant. Ex. A3 is returned postal cover with the endorsement of “unclaimed”. Ex. A4 is printed copy of cell phone message sent by the respondent dt. 13th April, 2013 call back later and April 24th 2013 i.e. “Sir Good evening we r in tirupati I will come to Hyd. After 7 days I will pay the amount after coming pls. don’t wary about amountal” and again on the date of 30th April 2013 I am in driving”. But there is no any response from the respondent without receiving only messages.
8. The learned counsel of the complainant filed a citation 2006 (2) APLJ 153 (HC) In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, M/s C&C Enterprises and State of A.P. and another that the negotiable instruments Act 1881 Sec. 138 – The notice to the cover of the cheque has been issued within 30 days of the intimation from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid – Notice returned with “Postal endorsement” not claimed – The presumption should be that the notice was served. Hence, the respondent called absent and set exparte. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.
8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed. The respondent is directed to repay Rs. 90,000/- (Ninety Thousand) which was taken as advance for aluminum wall drops and kitchen cabinet etc., from the complainant on 13-3-2013. Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) for mental agony to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) towards cost of the complaint. The respondent is liable to pay total Rs. 1,15,000/- (One lakh fifteen thousand) to the complainant within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 15th February 2014.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant
PW1 Dr. D. Sesha Sayana, dt. 11-2-2014.
For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of quotation dt. 12-3-2013 issued by the respondent in favour of
the complainant.
Ex. A2 Legal notice dt. 27-5-2013 got issued by the complainant.
Ex. A3 Returned postal cover.
Ex. A4 P/c of printed copy of manager sent by opposite party.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Sri V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri M. Srinivas, S/o not known, aged 30 years,
Sri Sai Interior Contractors, 8-1-84/3, Mailardevpally,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500 005
B.V.P.
