Judgment : Dt.18.1.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by one Sri Harish Chandra Nath, son of Sri Nitya Nanda Nath, residing at 44, Stadium Nagar, Mukundapur, P.O.-Mukundapur, P.S.-Purba Jadavpur, Dist.-South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 099 against The Director, Tech Gibson Elevator Co. Pvt. Ltd., P-73, Nilachal Complex, PH-I, 5th Row, Narendrapur, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 103, OP No.1 and The Sales Manager, Tech Gibson Elevator Co. Pvt. Ltd., P-73, Nilachal Complex, PH-I, 5th Row, Narendrapur, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 103, OP No.2 praying for an order against the O.P.s directing them to install new lift and complete the project in the schedule of property as per proposal-cum-agreement dt.23.7.2016 and supply the test certificate in default, a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @8% p.a. and also an order against the OP to provide free maintenance after installation of new lift as per the contract, in default to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and an order against the OP directing them to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.40,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs. As per the terms and conditions of the proposal-cum-contract, Complainant paid time to time Rs.50,000/- dt.2.8.2016, Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.9.2016, another Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.11.2016 to the OP No.1 and accordingly OP No.1 issued money receipts to the Complainant. OPs agreed to install machine and finish the complete job with Rs.3,40,000/- and 10% discount allow on total contract value to the tune ofRs.3,06,000/-. OPs in spite of taking total Rs.3,00,000/- out of Rs.3,06,000/- did not proceed with the matter although balance of Rs.6,000/- was with the OP. As per the said contract the lift was to be completed within six months from the date of contract i.e. 23.7.2016 and 29.10.2016 and Complainant thereafter issued notice on 20.2.2017 to OP No.2 and requested to complete the installation work of lift within seven days of the receipt of notice. But OPs did not install the lift. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint petition. OP No.1 has submitted that he has started the work and after doing the work he installed the lift. But finally installation process, permission was required from the department of Directorate of Electricity, Kolkata, and for the said permission certain documents required for which the Complainant was requested to provide. But, Complainant did not provide those documents. As a result of that OP was harassed. Further, OP No.1 has submitted that due to latches of the Complainant, the lift could not be installed and so he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.2.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP No.1 did not file evidence and the case was fixed for argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
In this regard, it appears from the written version of OP No.1 that he has not denied the receipt of money by the Complainant. Further, it appears that OP No.1 has alleged that Complainants since could not provide the necessary documents so that installation work would be completed, it could not be done. Further, OP No.1 has not mentioned in his written version as to how much he spent in doing the work and which could not be completed due to latches of the Complainant.
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.
As such, we are of the view that Complainant the money and OP No.1 started the work for installation. But as per the OP No.1, the work could not be completed due to the latches of the Complainant. Further, Complainant has not prayed for any local inspection or Engineer Commissioner for ascertaining as to how much work was left and OP also did not approach for any Engineer Commissioner to ascertain how much OPs invested in doing the part work as alleged in the written version.
So, we are of the view that if an order for refund ofRs.2,50,000/- is passed it will serve the object of justice.
Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost.
Since both Complainant and OPOs have caused latches, we are of the view that there is no ground in allowing either compensation or litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
CC/210/2017 and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
