THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 29^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, sought direction to OP for refund of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and mental agony, to pay cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant stated that with an intention to get the interiors for her house, she searched OP interiors designers company for the said interiors to be done for her house. She contacted OP and agreed to do the interior works with OP company, OP has given estimation for Rs.7,98,408/-. Complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- on 28.02.2023. OP has an advance payment to start the interior works. After some time complainant changed her mind and was not in position to start her interior works. The same has been intimated to OP to cancel the services since OP has not started her assignment. Another reason was OP has demanded a remuneration of the person who appointed to complainant’s interior work apart from the estimated cost. Due to this reason complainant got frustrated and stopped the work which is assigned to OP.

3. Complainant further stated that she repeatedly requested OP to refund the amount, OP did not refund her money. With no other option complainant caused legal notice on 16.05.2023. OP neither responded to the complainant nor refunded her money back. Therefore complainant alleged with OP has caused deficiency of service by not refunding the money when they have not given any services to complainant. Hence she approached this commission for refund of Rs.40,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.

4. The notice was sent to OP through RPAD which was duly served on OP, but OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

5. When the stage of affidavit evidence of complainant, inspite of sufficient time granted to complainant, complainant did not turn up to adduce her evidence. Hence affidavit evidence of complainant is taken as nil. We perused the documents on record and passed the appropriate order on merits.

6. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

7.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                      REASONS

8. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

9. Since this consumer complaint is tried in summary proceedings, we perused the material on record and appropriate order on merits. Though the complainant not adduced her evidence by filing affidavit and has not argued the matter.

10. Complainant has produced her Aadhar Card, booking form issued by OP dated 28.02.2023 which contains the information about the project and the advance paid Rs.40,000/-, out of the estimated cost of Rs.7,98,408/-. It also reveals that the payment has made through online and one Mr. Kiran Kumar and Miss Ramya from OP office attended and taken her assignment on 28.02.2023. Complainant also produced estimated chart pertains to her house interior design of Rs.7,98,408/- and also produced legal notice, when she requested for a refund of her money. After perusal of these records, the booking form issued by OP reveals the payment which is signed and sealed by OPs on official letter head. The advance amount received and the assignment has not commenced with one or the other reasons, means OP should have refunded the money to the complainant. In our considered view without providing any services, retaining the money of complainant is unjust and unfair. In case, OP is genuine with his attitude, he could have refunded her money without any delay. Even after several request over phone, OP did not refunded the money. Complainant subsequently caused legal notice seeking refund and compensation though it has served on OP, OP neither replied to the legal notice nor complied the claims of the complainant. It shows the negligent and malafide intention behind the act of OP. It definitely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Even after notice duly served on OP through this commission, OP neither appeared nor filed their objection and evidence to defend their case. Hence the documents produced by complainant at the time of filing this complaint are considered. Therefore OP is liable to compensate the same. OP is liable to refund Rs.40,000/- to the complainant which she has paid for the interior designing work and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service. Accordingly on the above reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 with affirmative and partly affirmative respectively.

10. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.
3. OP shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.
4. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th day of JANUARY, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

NIL

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL