This is a complaint made by (1) Sri Sukumar Sutradhar, son of Late Nibaran Chandra Sutradhar and (2) Smt. Madhuchhanda Bose, wife of Sri Sukumar Sutradhar, both residing at Flat No.4E, 4th floor, Spectra, Bhabani Exotica, 997/1, Dakshindanri Road, Kolkata-700 048 against Sri Sanjoy Saha of 13/3, Chander Village Road, P.O. & P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082, praying for (a) an appropriate order directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- only as compensation for damages against defective interior decoration of the flat, (b) an appropriate order to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant to be spent to make the said flat suitable for human habitation (c) a direction upon the OP to pay adequate interest and (d) a direction upon the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice.
Facts in brief are that by a registered deed of conveyance dt.7.9.2015, petitioner purchased a newly constructed residential flat with a car parking space for their own use and occupation from M/s Himanga Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. at Lake Town, Kolkata. After such purchase, Complainants were looking for a suitable professional person, for interior decoration of their flat.
OP approached the Complainant through one Keshab Ghosh and Sri Bipul Biswas, ex-security of the claimant for interior decoration of the said flat to guess the composite estimate of Rs.10,88,200/-. Complainant No.1 endorsed the formal approval for that. Thereafter, Complainant No.1 approved it without knowing the cost break up for each individual item and he did not get opportunity of comparing itemwise cost against the prevailing market rate. Complainant No.1 was induced and deceived by the OP into engaging him for the job.
Accordingly, Complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 22.1.2016 through Keshab Ghosh and Bipul Biswas as an advance for such interior decoration. This was done because Complainant could not look after the quality and progress of the interior decoration. On 15.2.2016 Complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- again through Keshab Ghosh and Bipul Biswas and on 8.3.2016 Complainant again paid Rs.2,00,000/- through Keshab Ghosh and Bipul Biswas after paying the last installment, Complainant asked OP as to when the work would be completed, who told that within 3/4 months it would be completed, on which Complainant No.1 insisted that already he has paid 90% of the amount.
By the end of April, 2016, Complainant visited the flat and found that the construction of the false ceiling and modular kitchen was satisfactorily done by the OP in accordance of the original proposal approved by them. All other furniture fittings and fixtures including masonry, carpentry and electrical items and others were to be completed by the OP.
On 2.5.2017 OP forwarded another bill of Rs.1,04,600/- on which Complainant No.1 reminded that he has to complete the work first.
Thereafter, OP informed Complainant No.1 that the flat was ready and in habitable condition. After that Complainants visited the flat and found certain defects like the lock attached to the sliding glass door has been left broken, video door unit attached to the entrance door is damaged, cheap, low quality basin has been installed, window glass of the bath room is broken. Complainant No.1 also found other defects which he has mentioned.
Against this written version has been filed where all the allegation of the complaint has been denied. Further, it is stated that on 26.1.2016, 6.3.2016, 4.4.2016 the Complainant expressed complete satisfaction of the work done by the OP. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP has filed questionnaire. Complainant has replied to the question put by the OP.
Similarly, the OP has filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written version. Against this Complainant has filed questionnaire. Against this questionnaire OP has filed reply.
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
First relief of the Complainant is an appropriate order directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- only as compensation for damages against defect interior decoration of the flat.
In this regard, it is clear that the amount of compensation for damages is never refunded. It has to be ascertained that Complainants have prayed for refunding the amount which are compensation for damages for defective interior decoration. If at all Complainants intended to get the compensation for damages for defective decoration; the prayer would have been made otherwise and not in this fashion. Furthermore, neither affidavit-in-chief nor questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply reveals as to what Complainants mean by refund of compensation for damages against defective interior decoration. Accordingly, this amount cannot be allowed.
Second prayer of Complainant is an appropriate order to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for spending to make the flat suitable for human habitation i.e. Complainants have alleged that the flat’s interior decoration is not suitable for human habitation and once Rs.1,00,000/- is spent it would be suitable for human habitation. The defects Complainants have mentioned in the complaint petition in paragraph 16 where Complainants have alleged that cheap quality basin has been installed and some glass were found broken.
Further, complainants have alleged that bath room fittings have not been installed which was agreed and the bed room has been poorly constructed. If these were such, what was the hurry that Complainant took the possession and did not pray for any local inspection commission in order to substantiate the allegation. Moreover, the defects which Complainants have mentioned in paragraph 16 of the complaint cannot be repaired by investing Rs.1,00,000/- which Complainant has prayed for making his flat habitable.
As such, there appears some discrepancies and the prayer made in Clause B cannot be allowed.
Third prayer of Complainant is direction upon the OP to pay adequate interest upon the said amount i.e. which Complainant paid. Since the grant of Complainant’s prayer does not appear to be justified; the question of allowing interest does not arise.
Finally, Complainants have prayed for a direction upon the OP to pay compensation ofRs.2,00,000/-. However, the evidences adduced by the Complainant do not justify that Complainants are entitled to compensation.
Hence,
ordered
CC/296/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.
