Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/163/2018

Ravisagar S/o siddesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.Karthik.S.Murthy - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.Sreepathi

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.08.2018

DISPOSED  ON:11.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:163/2018

 

DATED:  11^th JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Ravisagar S/o Siddesh, Aged about 28 years, Acquitas Studios, Ashoka road, Church Circle, Tumkuru.   (Rep by Sri.G. Sreepathi, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	Sri.Karthik.S.Murthy, Murthy Infratech, First Floor, Chidanuru Sahurdha Building, Bangalore road, Challkere-577522.   (Rep by Sri.K.H. Sriramappa, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss and Rs.75,000/- towards costs, in all a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, on 15.09.2016, the OP has given quotation to the complainant with respect to the materials towards interior work to be done for his bakery and studio for a sum of Rs.3,29,236/-.  Further on 16.02.2017, the OP has given quotation for a sum of Rs.4,57,434/- and received Rs.2,62,400/- as an advance and the balance amount was Rs.1,95,000/-.  The OP has received an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- through Bank and also an amount of Rs.57,770/- by way of cash on 18.10.2016 and 04.01.2018 respectively.  After receiving the said amount, the OP has not used the good quality of materials, due to that impact, the sheet pasted to the plywood were left and the glass doors and closer clamps were shaking and the falls roofing was breaking and the sheets pasted to the wall was damaging.  The powder was fallen from the tables formed by the OP.  The said facts were intimated to the OP so many times, the OP showed his irresponsibility.  The complainant sent an e-mail to the OP stating that, the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- will be paid after rectifying the defects found in the work done by the OP.  But the OP has filed a false complaint and presented the cheque before the Bank and recovered an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, which was excess by an amount of Rs.35,000/-, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, on 25.07.2018 the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP, the same was replied on 03.08.2018 and denied all the allegations and filed a case under Sec.138 and 142 of N.I Act and recovered an amount from the complainant, the same is not connected to the present case.  Even the OP has not rectified the defects found in the work done by him, he has recovered excess amount from the complainant, the same amounts to deficiency of service and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OP, Sri.K.H. Sriramappa, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed version.  It is falsetto state that, the OP has received Rs.3,29,236/- from the complainant towards the materials for the interior work to be done in the bakery and studio of the complainant.   It is stated that, an amount of Rs.3,29,326/- was fixed for the materials, glass and doors only.  The amount towards labours and planning work was separate.  It is admitted that, the OP has given final quotation on 16.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,57,434/- and an amount of Rs.2,62,400/- was received from the complainant and the remaining amount was Rs.1,95,000/-.  It is false to state that, the OP has received an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- from the complainant through Bank and an amount of Rs.57,770/- by way of cash.  Further it is admitted that, the complainant has given Rs.2,95,000/- through cheque on different dates.  It is false to state that, after receiving the said amount, the OP has not used the good quality of materials, due to that impact, the sheet pasted to the plywood were left and the glass doors and closer clamps were shaking and the falls roofing was breaking and the sheets pasted to the wall was damaging, the powder was fallen from the tables formed by the OP, the said facts were intimated to the OP so many times, the OP showed his irresponsibility,  the complainant sent an e-mail to the OP stating that, the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- will be paid after rectifying the defects found in the work done by the OP, but the OP has filed a false complaint and presented the cheque before the Bank and recovered an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, which was excess by an amount of Rs.35,000/-, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the OP has used good quality branded material, which was accepted by the complainant.  After satisfying the work done by the OP, the complainant has issued payment through cheque for Rs.2,95,000/- and after satisfying the work done by the OP, the complainant has performed the opening ceremony of the bakery and studio on 03.02.2017 and the complainant is still due to pay the amount to OP.  The complainant has filed this complaint to escape from the OP for payment of the remaining amount.  There is no defects found in the work done by the OP i.e., there is no shaking in the glass doors, closer clamps and brackets and also the sheets pasted to the plywood were in good condition and the powder is not fallen from the tables.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 got marked.  OP has examined one Sri.Karthik S. Murthy, the Managing Partner as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 and B-6 documents and closed his side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs committed deficiency in service by using substandard quality in the interior work done to his bakery and studio and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, on 15.09.2016, the OP has given quotation to the complainant with respect to the materials towards interior work to be done for his bakery and studio for a sum of Rs.3,29,236/- and on 16.02.2017, the OP has given final quotation for a sum of Rs.4,57,434/-.  The OP has received an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- through Bank and also an amount of Rs.57,770/- by way of cash on 18.10.2016 and 04.01.2018 respectively.  After receiving the said amount, the OP has not used the good quality of materials, due to that impact, the sheet pasted to the plywood were left and the glass doors and closer clamps were shaking and the falls roofing was breaking and the sheets pasted to the wall was damaging.  The powder was fallen from the tables formed by the OP.  The said facts were intimated to the OP so many times, the OP showed his irresponsibility.   It is not in dispute that, the OP agreed to construct the interior work proposed for Acquitos Studio and Bakery and agreed to receive an amount of Rs.4,27,434-50.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid the entire amount to the OP on different dates.  After completion of the work, the opening ceremony of the Bakery was performed by the complainant on 03.02.2017.  After few months, there was a defect found in the materials fixed by the OP to his Bakery.  The OP has installed low quality materials in the interior work of the Bakery.  As per the documents produced by the complainant, it clearly shows that, the OP has fixed the low quality materials to the interior work of the Bakery and Studio.  The complainant also paid amount to the OP through Court.     

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties.  It clearly shows that, the OP has agreed to do the interior work of the Bakery and Studio belonging to the complainant on 15.09.2016.  Accordingly the OP has given quotation to the complainant for Rs.4,57,434/- and the complainant has paid the entire amount to the OP on different dates.  After completion of the work, there was some defects found in the materials adopted by the OP in the interior work of Bakery and Studio.  No doubt the OP has fixed defective materials in the interior work of the Bakery and Studio belongs to the complainant, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.     Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant towards installation of defective materials to the Bakery and Studio of the complainant at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

Further it is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. 

 It is further ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 11/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1: Sri.Karthik S. Murthy, the Managing Partner of OP by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Quotation dated 15.09.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Final estimate dated 16.09.2016
03	Ex-A-3:-	Final quotation dated 16.02.2017
04	Ex-A-4:-	Final quotation dated 16.02.2017
05	Ex-A-5:-	Payment details
06	Ex-A-6:-	Mail copy
07	Ex-A-7:-	Legal notice dated 25.07.2018
08	Ex-A-8:-	Reply to notice dated 31.07.2018
09	Ex-A-9:-	Photos

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Opening ceremony invitation card
02	Ex-B-2:-	Final quotation dated 16.02.2017
03	Ex-B-3:-	Order sheet in PCR No.42/2018
04	Ex-B-4:-	Legal notice dated 20.01.2018
05	Ex-B-5:-	Reply to legal notice dated 31.07.2018
06	Ex-B-6:-	Photos

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**