SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT        

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Facts, in brief; relevant to decide this case are that the complainant had entrusted the OP for interior designing, lighting, electrical, kitchen work including furniture of the entire flat against contract of Rs.7,78,000/-. The OP had promised to complete the said work within 90 days from 30.09.2016 and the complainant had already paid Rs.5,60,000/- to the OP on different dates out of Rs.7,78,000/-. In spite of payment of Rs.5,60,000/- the OP did not complete the work. Repeated requests were made but the OP ignored such requests. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence,  the consumer complaint.

                   The OP has contested the case by filing Written Version denying all the material allegations of the complainant. The specific case of the OP is that on 16.04.2016 the complainant and his mother Tasnim Ansari had visited their showroom and enquired about the estimated cost of their proposed interior works. As such, the OP issued quotation. Ultimately, the mother of the complainant ordered for interior wooden work of the kitchen against quotation of Rs.1,15,000/- and paid advance amount of Rs.30,000/-. Sk. Mobarak, Carpenter of the OP started the work after taking materials from them. In course of progress of the work the complainant’s mother issued a cheque of Rs.30,000/- bearing No.174788 dated 15.02.2017 drawn on S.B.I  to the OP. Complainant’s mother paid Rs.60,000/- out of total estimated cost of Rs.1,15,000/-. On the request of the complainant’s mother, kitchen cabinet work temporarily withheld on the ground that she will go to abroad. In spite of repeated request the complainant’s mother deferred the interior wooden work of the kitchen. The complainant and his mother in collusion with each other adopted dishonest and manipulative strategy. There is no deficiency in service and / or unfair practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the consumer case.

                   Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following points are to be decided : -

Points for Decision

1)         Is the OP deficient in non providing service to the complainant in respect of implementation of interior designing and decoration?

2)         Is the OP unfair in trade practice?

3)         Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reason

Points No. 1 to 3 :

                   All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

                   Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed their Brief Notes of Arguments.

                   We have examined the evidence and material on record and also given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the parties.

                   Facts remains that complainant had entrusted the OP for kitchen work of the Flat No. GF 3, Rohra Heights, New Town, Kolkata – 700 159 at a total contract of Rs.1,15,000/- and also paid Rs.60,000/- out of such amount. It is also true that the OP engaged their carpenter Sk. Mobarak to complete the work.

                   The grievance of the complainant is that she also engaged the OP for designing, lighting and electrical work of the entire flat at a total consideration of Rs.7,78,000/- against quotation and the complainant had paid Rs.5,60,000/- on different dates to Sk. Mobarak, an employee of OP. In spite of payment the OP did not complete the work. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

                   Per-contra, the defense of the OP is that one Tasmin Ansari, mother of the complainant had visited their showroom on 16.04.2016, enquired about the estimated cost of proposed interior work of their flat at New Town. Quotation was given but she ordered for three interior wooden works of the kitchen against quotation amount of Rs.1,15,000/- and paid Rs.30,000/- each by cash and Rs. 30,000/- by cheque. The OP sent one carpenter named Sk. Mobarak to start the proposed kitchen work after obtaining materials from their showroom. The said carpenter was carrying out the work of kitchen cabinet but at the request of the complainant’s mother the kitchen cabinet work temporarily withheld as she was going out of India. The OP has denied that there is any contract for designing lighting and electrical work of the entire flat at a total consideration of Rs. 7,78,000/- and payment of Rs.5,60,000/-  made on different dates.

                   We have perused the Invoice / Quotation dated 30.09.2016. The Invoice / Quotation goes to show that the cost of kitchen interior wooden works is Rs.1, 15,000/- and the complainant had already paid Rs.60, 000/- to the OP. On perusal of the photocopy of documents annexed with then consumer complaint it appears to us that the complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- to one Sk. Mobarak, a temporary carpenter of the OP, who has no authority to receive the said amount. Even the complainant did not produce any money receipt showing payment of Rs.5, 00,000/- to the OP on different dates. Enquired the estimated cost for interior decoration of the flat at New Town and entrusted the OP to do the interior decoration is separate. No quotation is forthcoming that complainant accepted and paid any advance amount to the OP for interior decoration of the flat at New Town, Kolkata. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant regarding payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the OP on different dates for interior decoration of the flat No. GF-3, Rohra Heights, New Town, Kolkata is not correct. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

                   It is true that requisite order of kitchen as per invoice / quotation dated 30.09.2016 has not yet been completed in absence of complainant and her mother. The OP is directed to complete Kitchen decoration work as per estimate dated 30.09.2016 within 45 days against receipt of balance amount of Rs.55,000/-. Accordingly, all the points are decided in seriatim.

                   In the result, the case merit succeeds in part.

                   Hence,

ORDERD

                   That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP without any litigation cost.

                   The OP is directed to complete the unfinished work of the kitchen of Flat No. GF-3, Rohra Heights, New Town, Kolkata fully mentioned in the Invoice / Quotation dated 30.09.2016 within 60 days. Complainant is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- as per Invoice to the OP within 30 days from this day.