IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 171/2012 (Filed on 06.11.2012)
Between:
Philip Mathews,
Kochumadathil House,
Kattoor P.O.,
Kozhencherry represented by his
Power of Attorney,
Mr. Thomas Mathew,
Kanjanikalayil House,
Naranganam West P.O.,
Kozhencherry – 689 642. … Complainant.
(By Adv. T. Harikrishnan)
And:
1. Varghese Benny,
Civic Interiors,
Anakallu, Avinissery P.O.,
Thrissur.
2. Limcy Benny,
Civic Interiors,
Anakallu, Avinissery P.O.,
Thrissur. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Brijendralal. S.P.)
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed by Sri. Thomas Mathew as the Power of Attorney holder of Sri. Philip Mathew.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Opposite parties are husband and wife together carrying on the business of interior decoration under the name and style “Civic Interiors”. On May 2011, complainant entrusted the interior work of his new residence to opposite parties. In pursuance of the mutual agreement, complainant paid an amount of Rs. 25,000 to the opposite parties. Then the opposite parties promised to start the carpentry work by early November 2011. But they started the work on 27.11.2011. Moreover, the workers were North Indians who had absolutely no knowledge or experience in carpentry work. On the request of the opposite parties, the complainant provided free accommodation to the workers. Subsequently, opposite parties asked for payment of Rs. 25,000 and the complainant paid the amount. The carpentry work was defective and negligent. There was nobody to supervise the carpentry work. The work resulted in much wastage of costly wood and those items finished were of bad workmanship. In the middle of the work, a few of the carpenters would leave and after a few days a new batch of workers would arrive. The new workers wasted much wood trying to adjust with the unfinished work of the earlier carpenters. Though these aspects were informed to the opposite parties, they took no steps to correct the situation and to avoid gross wastage of time and material.
3. Opposite parties had quoted a rate of Rs. 1,300 for door shutters and Rs. 500 for window panels of all types. On 17.01.2012, the opposite parties e-mailed a bill of Rs. 55,013 for the unfinished work of the inexperienced workers. Complainant transferred Rs. 25,000 to the account of the second opposite party as required by them.
4. After receiving the payments, opposite parties withdrew their workers from the site on 18.01.2012. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties over telephone, they promised to send workers and resume work immediately. On believing this promise, complainant took leave from his employer and came down to Kerala. But there was no response from the opposite parties. Though the complainant paid an amount of Rs.75,000 to the opposite parties, they have not completed even a single item of work to the satisfaction of the complainant. Finally, complainant entrusted the carpentry work to third parties. The act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting Rs. 3,55,000 from the opposite parties with 18% interest along with cost and compensation.
5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: According to the opposite parties, there is no agreement with the complainant as alleged in the complaint for doing carpentry work. Second opposite party who is the wife of first opposite party has no relation with the business conducted by the first opposite party. It is true that there is a talk between the complainant and first opposite party regarding interior work of complainant’s new residence. As per the request of the complainant, opposite party sent experienced carpenters for rectifying the defects already occurred in the carpentry work done by the complainant. But the complainant did not provide good atmosphere for the workers. But they successfully completed the carpentry work. Complainant’s aim is to collect the interior designs of the opposite parties by crooked method. After obtaining the designs, complainant completed the work with the help of his men. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Hence the opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. Evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder and Ext. A1. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
8. The Point: The complainant’s case is that opposite parties were conducting the business of interior works and they undertake the interior work of his new residence. As per the mutual agreement entered between them, carpenters of the opposite parties started carpentry workers. But the workers were inexperienced North Indian works who had no knowledge or experience in carpentry work. Due to their work, complainant has sustained wastage of costly wood and wastage of time. For this defective work, opposite parties collected Rs. 75,000 from the complainant. Moreover, after receiving the amounts, opposite parties withdrew their workers from the site. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and because of this deficiency in service; the complainant was put to irreparable injuries and sufferings. So the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s power of attorney holder and one witness filed proof affidavits along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the document is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Thomas Mathew.
10. In this case, though the opposite parties filed a version, they have not turned up with the proceedings of the case. They have not either produced any oral or documentary evidence or they have not even cross examined the power of attorney holder and the witness.
11. At the same time, the complainant also failed to adduce any documentary evidence supporting their contentions regarding the agreements between the parties, the payments made by the complainant to the opposite parties and the expenses met by the complainant for his journey etc. Further the complainant also failed to brought any evidence to show the poor workmanship of the workers and the loss and damages of the materials supplied by the complainant.
12. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations raised by the complainant in toto, as we could not find any previous acquaintance and enemity between the parties especially for the reason that both parties are residing at distance places. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the complainant’s allegations and claims partly and hence we find that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. In the circumstances, this complaint can be allowed with certain modifications.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only), the amount collected by the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of March, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibitsmarked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Power of Attorney dated 28.07.2012 executed by the
complainant in favour of Thomas Mathew.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Mr. Thomas Mathew, Kanjanikalayil House,
Naranganam West P.O., Kozhencherry – 689 642.
(2) Varghese Benny, Civic Interiors, Anakallu, Avinissery
P.O., Thrissur.
(3) Limcy Benny, Civic Interiors, Anakallu, Avinissery
P.O., Thrissur.
(4) The Stock File.
