Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/434/2011

Sonia D/o Sarwan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tripti Interior - Opp.Party(s)

Rajev Khurana

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No. 434  of 2011.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 04.05.2011.

                                                                                               Date of decision: 23.08.2016.

 

Sonia aged about 33 years daughter of Sh. Sarwan Lal, resident of Civil Line, Opp. Guga Mari, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                                                          Versus

 

Tripti Interior C/o H. No. 26/1 Near Baba Kiryana Store, Vishnu Nagar, Workshop Road Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Sh. Anil Kumar.      

                                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rajiv Khurana Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. G.S.Reen, Advocate, counsel for OP.    

             

 

ORDER

1                      The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant availed the service of respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) who is an interior decorator, for interiorly decorating her house situated at Civil Line, Jagadhri which was in the process of construction. The complainant availed the services of the OP for flooring the complete house, complete kitchen, wall papers cum-painting and ceiling, for consideration and paid more than Rs. 2,50,000/- to the OP but the OP did not work as per specification given by the complainant during the negotiations. Further, the OP did not use the material as assured and started using material i.e. tiles etc. of inferior quality and when the complainant made a complaint to the OP in this regard, then the OP left the work incomplete. In this way, caused huge financial loss to the complainant. Some of the illegal and deficient acts of the OP are that, OP had undertaken to complete the kitchen fitting i.e. board and wooden fittings, glass door, granite, taps, washbasins, aluminium fittings, steel racks, handles and other accessories for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- but the OP only prepared the some wooden racks and left the rest of the kitchen work incomplete. Further, the OP had undertaken to complete flooring work of two rooms, lobby porch and bathrooms and had assured to affix tiles worth Rs. 75/- in the lobby and worth Rs. 50/- in the rooms and kitchen but the OP Only completed the flooring work of kitchen, porch and bathroom and half work of flooring of lobby and left the remaining work of lobby incomplete and also did not do any flooring work in the rooms. Similarly, the OP had undertaken to complete the POP work, ceiling work, paint work and wall papers for Rs. 50,000/- but left the said work incomplete and supplied only 2 wall papers instead of 3.  Further, the OP had also assured to affix glass doors, complete the work of ceiling, lighting and wooden work in Rs. 45,000/- but left the office work incomplete. Besides this, OP had also to complete the miscellaneous wooden work i.e. computer table, books shelf, child Elmira worth Rs. 30,000/- and the same was left uncompleted. In this way, OP had done only the work of Rs. 1,50,000/- to 1,80,000/- and has left the work incomplete, so, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment etc.

3.                     Upon notice OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action and on merit it has been admitted that OP is Interior Decorator and the complainant availed the service of her house. However, it has been stated that complainant availed the services of OP only to provide drawing and advice to the labour to do the job. the complainant has to do the job at her own and she has to purchase the material and other articles at her own and also it is the complainant who has to arrange the labour for doing the job. Rest contents of the complaint has been denied by the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Despite so many opportunities, complainant failed to adduce any evidence, so, her evidence was closed by court order dated 21.12.2015. However, lateron counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence complaint made by workers Bittu and Kuldeep to the Labour Inspector on 21.04.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of miscellaneous paper of diary containing some data/ figures as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7                      The only case of the complainant is that she has hired the service of OP who is interior decorator and paid near about Rs.2,50,000/- on various accounts for the work of flooring, POP, wooden work of her house but the OP did not work as per specification given by the complainant to the OP and further also left some work incomplete and in this way the complainant has suffered financial loss and draw our attention towards the complaint made by works to the labour inspector Annexure C-1 and some calculations made on plain papers Annexure C-2.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP argued that OP has only given the drawings of the interior decoration of the house of complainant and advised to the labour to do the job. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP as no documentary evidence bearing the signatures of the OP, has been filed by the complainant. Although the OP has admitted in his written statement that the complainant had hired the services of the OP as interior decorator, even then to decide such type of cases voluminous evidence is required. As the complainant has failed to file any agreement executed between the parties and also further failed to prove that what type of work was assigned and agreed between the parties for what  amount and further how much work was done by the OP. The complainant relied upon the Annexure C-1 and C-2 i.e. complaint made by the workers to the labour inspector and some calculations made on plain papers but both these documents have no weightage in the eye of law and complainant cannot get any benefits from these documents in the absence of any specific agreement executed between the parties. In the absence of any written agreement and expert report it is very difficult to decide such type of cases in summary nature and only to decide the case civil court is the best plate-form.   

10                    In the circumstances noted above, the present complaint stands dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to redress her grievances before the Civil Court, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 23.08.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.