DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.477/14
Mr. Ashok Nagrath
S/o Mr Bhagmal Nagrath
R/o 206 A & B, The Arralias
Gold Link Road
Gurgaon, Haryana. ….Complainant
Versus
- Mrs. Vibha Wadhwa
C/o Designer’s Home
D-810, New Friends Colony
New Delhi-110025.
- Ms. Vritima Wadhwa
C/o Studio Lotus aka Lotus Design Services
(previously Lotus Link)
F-301, Lado Sarai, 1st Floor
Chaudhari Prem Singh House
New Delhi-110030.
And also at:
D-810, New Friends Colony
New Delhi-110025. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Date of Institution :19.12.2014
Date of Order : 24.5.2022
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that -
Complainant is owner of a flat who required interior designer and furniture for his flat. He approached Studio Lotus aka Lotus Design Services for the same wherein Ms. Vritima Wadhwa (OP-2) was assigned to work for the complainant.
It is stated that as the interiors/architecture work at the said flat was being carried on by Lotus Design Services, OP-2 recommended that the complainant get the furniture made from her mother’s firm viz. Designers Home (OP-1). Upon representations, recommendations and guarantees given by OP-2 in respect of quality of work, goods and services, complainant agreed to get furniture for his flat made from the firm of OP-1.
It is stated that after detailed discussions in respect of design and materials to be used as per samples/designs shown to him complainant placed an order on 21.5.2012 for the following items:-
- Master Bedroom Plasma Unit with Study
- Guest Bedroom Plasma Unit
- Guest Bedroom Wardrobe with Luggage Rack
- Plasma Unit for Living and Dining Area
- Bookshelf for Living Area
As per the instructions mentioned on invoice as well as confirmation given to the complainant, the furniture was to be delivered within 8 to 10 weeks on of placing of order i.e. by end of September, 2012. It is next stated that upon placing the order complainant was informed that the total cost for the order placed would be Rs.9,12,950/- which was later increased to Rs.10,36,000/- for Bed back wall with shelves as per e-mail dated 15.6.2012 by OP-1. Accordingly, complainant made an advance payment of Rs.4 Lakhs vide cheque dated 11.7.2012 in the name of Designer Homes(OP-1)
After delay of six months from the date of delivery, complainant received an e-mail from OP-1 stating that the veneer finalized by him for the master bed room is from an expensive range and that the cost of the master bed room study unit Bill has therefore shot up by 15 per cent. Due to delay in finalization of veneer and polish samples , there is delay in the master bed room unit and OP -1 needs approval from the Complainant for the increase in cost. Accordingly, complainant further paid advance of Rs. 2 Lakhs vide cheque dated 10.5.2013 drawn on Canara Bank. Complainant again received an e-mail from OP-1 on 30.5.2013 stating that the furniture is almost ready and they are dispatching it as soon as possible in coordination with Lotus Design and Build Craft.(Company responsible for civil construction.)
It is next stated by the complainant that there was delay of 9 to 10 months in the delivery of furniture. Due to which there was delay of the other on going works at the flat which caused harassment, huge loss of money and time. Thereafter, a sealed container from OP-1 was delivered on 8.6.2013. On 12.6.2013 complainant received an email from OP-1 confirming that they had received advance payment of Rs.6 Lakhs and asking for the balance payment of Rs.4,57,875/-, before release of rest of the furniture and also that transport charges for the same would be Rs.48,000/-. An invoice was attached to the said mail wherein OP-1 added the transportation charges which is annexed as Annexure P-9 (colly). Complainant, thereafter made the balance payment of Rs. 3,05,875/- vide cheque on 3.7.2013.
It is stated that by 3.7.2013 complainant had paid entire consideration of Rs.11,05,875/- in advance to OP-1. The goods were finally delivered on 7.7.2013 but the complainant was not allowed to open and inspect the goods till 10.7.2013. However, on inspection, complainant was completely shocked and disheartened to see goods made of poor quality and completely different from the material of the approved sample. Complainant immediately informed OP-1 of the same and asked that goods delivered be taken back. Copy of letter dated 10.7.2013 sent by complainant is annexed as Annexure P-14. Complainant on 17.3.2013 received a mail from OP-1 stating that she is ready to clear the furniture from the flat but required ` No Objection’ for the same. OP-1 offered reimbursement of 10 per cent of total value of goods (minus taxes and transportation costs). The complainant vide letter dated 18.7.2013 annexed as Annexure P-16 asked OP-1 to clear the furniture and return advance of Rs.11,05,875/- paid by the complainant,but to no avail.
Hence aggrieved, Complainant approached this commission with prayer to directions for OP to refund the complainant sum of Rs.11,05,875/- alongwith the interest @ 20% p.a. , compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards harassment , financial losses and Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation.
OP-1 resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the present dispute is a fall out of the serious disagreement , the complainant had with the architectural firm Lotus Design who had recommended OP-1 to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant is in the habit of getting into disagreement and disputes with its vendors. It is next stated that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has filed forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted that Annexure P-13, Annexure P-14, Annexure P-16 and Annexure P-18 are forged and fabricated documents.
OP-1 further states that complainant paid Rs. 11,05,875/- towards the sale price of the furniture items, which were ordered, customized, approved and delivered to the complainant. All the furniture items approved by and tailor-made for the complainant were delivered in June 2013 at the residence of the complainant. Accordingly, complainant paid the last instalment of Rs.3,05,875/- vide cheque dated 2.7.2013 . It is stated that the complainant after receiving all the furniture in June 2013, raised the demand for return of money almost nine months after the furniture was delivered and received by the complainant.
OP-1 states that the complainant placed order for six items i.e plasma unit for living and dining room, book shelf, guest bed room plasma unit, guest bed room wardrobe luggage rack, bed back wall with shelf and master bed room plasma unit with study. As per the standard terms of the invoice delivery of goods were to be made within 8 to 10 weeks after the approval and final specifications of the furniture to be provided by the complainant. The delivery by end of September 2012 was subject to the site being completed but since the work was unfinished at the site the complainant had requested OP-2 to delay the delivery. OP-1 to confirm the same has filed an email dated 28.5.2013 which was sent from OP-1 to Build Craft (responsible for civil construction) and an email dated 10.6.2013 sent from OP-1 to Crome Projects (Span Floors) .
It is next stated that the total amount of order placed by the complainant was for Rs. 10,36,000/- upon which a discount of 8.5% was deducted at the request of the complaint. Pursuant to this discount and adding the veneer cost, the total payable and settled amount was Rs.9,50,000/-. The taxes, packaging and transportation charges were extra to be paid by the complainant. Later on, as the complainant changed the veneer for the master bed room plasma unit to a more expensive one, new estimate was given and approved by the complainant. It is further stated that the delay in providing the furniture, if any, was because of the complainant. Firstly, complainant’s site was not ready. Secondly, the complainant was to provide, the specification and approvals which came at a belated stage. It is on 17.7.2012 the complainant through an email provided the dimensions of the electrical sound system to be put inside the furniture. On 31.7.2012, OP-1 requested for the dimension for the projects in living area, complainant did not provide the same as the apartment was under going construction. Again on 28.5.2013, OP-2 on behalf of Lotus Design had sent email to some of the vendors that there was delay in civil work at the site due to DLF and Schneider.
OP-1 also contends that letters dated 10.7.2013, 18.7.2013, 18.12.2013 filed by the complainant do not exist. It is stated that no letter dated 1.7.2013 had been attached along with email dated 5.4.2013. It is reiterated in email dated 8.4.2014 that all furniture items were delivered in June, 2013 which was evident as per the challans and documents of the transport carrier.
It is thus stated that the complainant has received all the goods as per his requirement given to OP-1 and has paid the amount for the same much after the delivery of those goods. Therefore, the present complaint is misconceived and is liable to dismissed with hefty costs being frivolous.
Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of Complainant and OP-1. Arguments on behalf of parties are heard and material placed on record is perused.
An application was filed on behalf of OP-2 for deleting its name from the array of parties. Arguments on the said application were heard and the application was dismissed as it was observed that certain allegations were made against OP-2 and to support the said allegations certain documents had been filed. However, OP-2 did not file its written statement and its right to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 8.7.2016. It is seen from the record that OP-2 did not participate in the proceedings thereafter.
There are several bones of contention in the present case. First being the delay in providing the furniture/goods to the complainant as promised. It is seen from the material placed on record that the delay was not on account of OP-1 rather OP-1 was bound by the instructions of the complainant as the said furniture was customised and was to be made as per the specifications given by the complainant. OP-1 had to get the designs , delivery dates, the material used in the products and the method of workmanship all approved by the complainant which took time. We have also gone through the mails exchanged between the parties which reveal that certain delays were caused by third party such as civil construction, flooring etc. It is clear that sometimes the issue of delivery rose due to DLF and Schneider. There is a mail to the effect that the flooring of the master bed room was behind schedule that caused delay in furniture which was to be fitted and fixed. Therefore the contention , that OP-1 had caused delay in providing goods/furniture to the complainant is rejected.
The second question of dispute is that the complainant alleges that the furniture/goods supplied to him were not of good quality and good design, as promised by OP-1. Rather the workmanship was very shoddy and was not up to the mark. Against the said deficiency there is email dated 17.7.2013 wherein OP-1 has stated that OP-1 was ready to clear furniture from the apartment of the complainant and offered to reimburse ten per cent of the total value of goods (minus taxes and transportation costs). OP-1 had requested the complainant to issue ‘No Objection’ Certificate so that OP-1 could clear the furniture from the apartment of the complainant and as stated the same was not given. Complainant has filed a letter dated 18.07.2013 annexed as Annexure P-16 , wherein OP-1 was permitted to take back the furniture and return his advance. The authenticity of the said unsigned letter is doubtful as it is not an Email and no proof of service has been attached showing it to have been served. In absence of the same, complainant’s version cannot be accepted.
Next contention raised by the Complainant is that as OP-1 had picked up the furniture/goods from his apartment and no goods or furniture as per the agreement between the parties lies with the complainant, the agreement stands terminated. Therefore complainant seeks refund of the complete amount paid to the complainant i.e. Rs.11,05,875/-. OP-1 very categorically in its written statement as well as during oral arguments have denied picking up the furniture. It is stated that OP-1 had requested for ‘No Objection’ Certificate which was not provided by the complainant. Therefore, without the permission of complainant OP-1 could not have lifted the furniture/goods from the apartment of the complainant. The burden of proving the same was on the complainant who alleged that the furniture/goods have been removed from his flat and were taken by OP-1. Complainant has not filed any challan or receiving or any other cogent evidence to prove that the goods/furniture has been picked up by OP-1 therefore it cannot be concluded that the furniture/goods are with OP-1.
It is rather alleged by OP-1 that complainant has adduced forged and fabricated documents annexed as Annexure P-13, P-14, P-16 and P-18. On close scrutiny of the said documents it is found that the documents though not forged but seems to have been fabricated as Annexure P-13, P-14, P-16 and P-18 are all unsigned letters not emails which are written by the complainant to OP-1. However, no proof of service is filed on record to prove that the letters annexed were served upon OP-1. Moreover when all communication between the parties was by Email there was no occasion for the complainant to communicate through snail mail.
Complainant has not been able to establish any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of OP-1 or OP-2. In view of the discussion above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
