FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN,MEMBER

This is an application U/S..35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The case of the complainant, in brief; is that the complainant No.4 Mrs Prerna Gupta along with the other complainants was desirous of redesigning the interiors a storage unit for the foyer,a study table and a chest of drawers cum side table and two name plates of her property located at Prova Apartments,58A Ritchie Road Kolkata-700019 in March 2021 while she was expecting a child in August 2021.All the materials was to be made in Mumbai except for the Foyer which was supposed to be made in Kolkata.Accordingly,the complainants engaged the OP company “Stand Design LLP”  to carryout the work.The complainant had requested the OP to purchase the raw materials from Kolkata itself but the OP company insisted on using the wood from their workshop in Mumbai.The OP company assured the complainant the they should use the raw materials of excellent quality.Complainant further stated that the goods received was beyond due date instead of july 2021 they delivered on August 2021 and it was also in damaged condition.The OP shifted the blame to the logistics company who shifted the materials.The name plate was also broken and one was lost in transit.The quality of  foyer cupboard was also poor quality. The furniture and the fittings was of extremely poor quality and the designs were not up the mark,the laminates were chipped in several places ,the paints in the furniture was unfinished.The Complainant asked for refund but the OP company denied because of delay.The OP company informed via e-mail that the damages of goods caused due to mishandling during transit.The OP company offered either to replace the furniture or issue a credit note to the complainant instead of refund for which the complainant did not agree .The complainant had sent a legal notice due to unsatisfactory services on 25^th February 2022 and asked for full refund but OP company did not pay attention to redress the grievances of the complainant.There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP company. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed the instant consumer case praying for direction upon the OP company to compensate the Rs.10 Lakh ( Rupees Ten Lakh) only towards the loss incurred by the complainant as well as the mental harassment and agony .

Despite service of notice, the OP did not turn up to contest the case.

 As  such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP.

Decision with Reasons

Upon perusal of the consumer complaint coupled with evidence of the complaint including photocopies of the documents, photographs of the damaged furniture, communication details we find that the complainant engaged the OP company for better service of quality finishing of work. OP company failed to discharge their contractual obligations regarding the work ordered by the complainant.

 The OP company is fully aware that they are liable to refund the . Complainant’s hard earned money. The OP deliberately make their illegal gains and to deprive the complainant from providing quality work and materials for they have assigned and the complainant expected.Thus, the OP has adopted unfair trade practice, and in fact, withhold the paid amount of Rs.4,89,300.00.The OP has opted not to file written Version despite of service of notice of complaint, the above allegations of the complaint is deemed to have been admitted as correct. Complainant have filed his affidavit reaffirming the allegations. Thus, it stands proved that despite of having received Rs. 4,89,300/- the OP company has failed to refund the paid amount for which the complainant is claiming. In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the stipulation of refund of  amount, we have no hesitation in concluding that the OP company has committed deficiency in service and also has indulged in unfair trade practice.

The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent  legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has paid Rs.4,89,300 /- to the OP company for the service for redesigning the apartment mentioned and hence they asked for refund of the full paid money due to disappointed with the services of the OP company. The OP company failed and neglected to refund the money since March 2021, to  the complainant and the act and conduct of the OP company is a clear case of deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not engaged the company and paid  his money with the OP,  he would have engaged some other company for better designing and quality work.. The complainant cannot be wait indefinitely to get the paid  amount. The complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and harassment. It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be commensurate with loss of suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. To get relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle.In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

In the result, the case succeeds in part.

Hence,

                                     Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part ex parte against the OP company.

OP company is directed to pay Rs. 1 Lakh 50 thousand- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) only as compensation for causing mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainant within the stipulated period.

Complainant put the order in execution, if the OP transgresses to comply the order according to Consumer Protection Act, 2019 after the expiry of 60 days.