Judgment : Dt.8.9.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Gaurav Biswas, son of Sri Gautam Biswas, residing at 78, Regent Place, 2nd floor, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 040 against Sri Tapas Mridha, C/o M/s Mridha Enterprise of 56/11/B, Dr. A.K.Paul Road, Behala Chowrasta, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, OP No.1 and M/s Mridha Enterprise of 56/11/B, Dr. A.K.Paul Road, Behala Chowrasta, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, OP No.2, praying for a order upon the OPs to act as per terms and conditions of interior decoration service quotation dt.26.2.2017 issued by the OP No.1 on the letter head of the OP No.2 and thereafter complete the interior decoration/ designing at the residence of the Complainant and upon failure to do the same alternatively return the advance payment made by the Complainant towards the same amounting to Rs.40,000/- and an order for liquidation damages amounting to Rs.50,000/-, as litigation cost Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a service man by profession and is residing at the address mentioned in the cause title. For the purpose of renovation in the house, he was approached by the OP who being an interior decorator is the proprietor of M/s Mridha Enterprise agreed to do the work at the flat of the Complainant. Complainant paid to the OP a sum of Rs.40,000/-, out of the total sum of Rs.80,000/-, as advance for interior decoration by the OP, vide quotation dt.26.2.2017. Complainant has stated that he has issued a bankers cheque of ICICI Bank Ltd. in favour of the OP amounting to Rs.39,500/- which was duly disbursed to the bank account of the OP No.1 and he made further payment of Rs.500/- totaling Rs.40,000/-. Complainant has stated that OP deliberately failed to discharge his duties by providing interior decoration service at the said premises in terms of the said quotation dt.26.2.2017. Complainant made several requests over phone. But OP did not oblige the Complainant despite receiving the money. So, Complainant issued a legal notice to the OP. But, despite that OP did not do the work. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP Mridha Enterprise did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant files affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Complainant has also filed BNA.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.40,000/- which he paid as advance for interior decoration/designing work to the OP.
In this regard, it appears that annexure A is a hand written quotation issued from Mridha Enterprise, which reveals that certain works are to be done for Rs.80,000/- and Mridha Enterprise received Rs.40,000/- out of that. Further, Xerox copy of the bank statement is filed, which reveals that Complainant paid Rs.40,000/- as advance. So, prima facie, it appears that Complainant proved the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to the reliefs because OP did not appear to challenge and rebut the allegations made by the Complainant. Complainant has also prayed compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
In this regard, it is submitted that Complainant has not proved that he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It is because hand written quotation depicts that the quotation was given on 26.2.2017. No time is mentioned in this quotation. After three months, Complainant filed this case. There is no agreement to show as to what was the time period in which designing work was to be prepared.
Hence,
ordered
CC/296/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte. OPs are directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant within three months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
