JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that ops are the interior decorator carrying on business in the interior decorating sector promised to provide interior decorating services to the complainant and on 14.03.2012 complainants with a dream to decorate their dwelling flat by appointing the ops to do the interior decoration of their flat and for that approached the op for an estimation that may be required to do the said decoration.  On proper discussion in detail with the op he gave an estimation of the amount which is required to do the interior decoration of the 1400 sq. ft. flat of the complainants and op handed over a brochure where in details the series of work which will be required to be done for decorating the interior of the flat and also handed over the estimation of the amount i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- which will cost for the interior decoration to be done but 50% of the cost of demolition of the existing floor shall be borne by the complainants which approximately costs of Rs. 15,000/- and complainant readily agreed and decided to appoint the op in the next year 2013 as certain preparation and shifting of things were required for that purpose after payment of op by the complainant, complainants advanced Rs. 3,00,000/- and that amount was paid vide cheque being No. 751223 drawn from the Oriental Bank of Commerce which was handed over to the op on 09.01.2013 and again on 17.02.2013 complainants handed over cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the op against which the op issued a money receipt.  But op after receiving of the said amount started primary job in interior decoration in the flat of the complainants but suddenly without any intimation only doing some demolishing work and some civil work stopped the work leaving the flat in a demolished stage.  For sudden halt of the work the complainants many a times contacted the op and requested to complete the work for which they appointed him but no venture was seen from the ends of the op leaving the flat in a demolished condition and further it was found that the work as done was also very poor and hardly Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- was spent for some primary work.

          Considering the conduct of the op, complainant finding no other alternative appointed another interior decorator and completed the job so that they can at least stay in a healthy atmosphere for which he had to spent of Rs. 7,83,500/- and lastly the complainant sent a final intimation to the op but op did not receive the letter and the same returned back to the complainants with the endorsement “not claimed”.  As per oral contract of appointment and for receiving Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance op as service provider cannot escape from the liability and so op is liable to refund the amount along with interest and cause of action arose on and from 15.07.2013 and in the circumstances complainant has prayed for relief and redressal.

          On the other hand op did not receive notice of the complaint and it was returned with “not claimed” that means op was aware of the facts and did not receive the same for which it was treated as good service and several time was given to the op so that op may contest the case but ultimately op since 11.06.2014 did not turn up and ultimately the case is heard exparte.

                                                       Decision with reasons

          Relying upon the complaint including the supportive documents and also evidence in chief as filed by the complainant and also hearing the Ld. Lawyer, we have gathered that no doubt for 1400 sq. ft. for interior decoration of the flat of the complainants, complainants engaged and appointed the op as service provider to complete the interior decoration and as per op’s estimation of the cost of the work, it was fixed Rs. 6,50,000/-.  But complainant was asked to pay 50% of the same as per op’s request and no doubt complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- vide receipt No.38 and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash vide receipt No. 36 and truth is that op/Himadri Auddy, C/o M/s Karukarjo reported the complainant to pay balance after completion of work and particulars of the work are also supplied but ultimately fled away from the flat without completion of the work.

          Fact remains the op got every chance to contest this case to challenge the testimony of the complainant and the allegation but op did not turn up knowing fully well that he has no defence.  So, in the above situation relying upon the uncontroverted evidence and document of the complainant and unchallenged testimony of the complainant we are convinced to hold that complainant has been deceived by the op who as service provider agreed to interior decoration of the flat of the complainant subject to payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- and as per op’s own receipt it is proved that op already received Rs. 3,00,000/- but has not completed the said work.

          In the above situation relying upon the said receipt and other documents as filed by the complainant along with complainant’s evidence in chief we are convinced to hold that op acted illegally and also has deceived the complainants by taking Rs. 3,00,000/- in advance without completing the interior decoration work of the said flat and such an act is no doubt an unfair trade practice on the part of the op and at the same time the service provider, he has not discharged his duties even after receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in the above situation we are convinced to hold that complainants have been able to prove this case against the op and allegations as made by the complainants beyond any manner of doubt.

          In the above fact and circumstances, the complaint succeeds and deficiency and negligence and also unfair trade practice are adopted by the op is proved beyond any manner of doubt.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on exparte against the op with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

          Op is hereby directed to pay and refund a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. over the said amount since the date of receipt of the said amount and till its full payment.

          Op is directed to pay the same including interest within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for violation and non-compliance of the Forum’s order op shall have to pay penal interest @ Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the complainants in such a manner after receiving advance Rs. 3,00,000/-, op is imposed punitive damages of Rs. 30,000/- and it is imposed only to check such sort of unmerchantable and deceitful business practice of the op in future and said amount shall be deposited to this Forum’s account without any fail within 15 days from the date of the order.

          Op is directed to comply the order within the stipulated period failing which penal action u/s 27 of C.P. Act shall be started for which penal proceeding and further penalty may be imposed against the op.