CC.No.:761/2018 Date of Filing:02.05.2018 Date of Order:03.10.2022 BEF ‘ORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ‘UTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. SSNS HINAGAR BANGALORE - 27, Dated: 03> DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 mated: U3" DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 PRESENT SRLH.LR. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B, Retd. Pri. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc., LL.B., MEMBER MRS.SHARAVATHI S.M., B..A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.761/2018 COMPLAINANT Mr. Sreenivas Rentala, Aged about 35 Years, \ S/o R. Radha Krishna Murthy; R/at Flat No.410, Sandeep Square, Beside Temple Tree Leisure, Near New Horizon College, Panathur Road, Bangalore-560003. (Rep. by Adv. Sri.George Philip) Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: 1. Espalia Designs and Constructions, T3 NRI Layout, Kalkere Main Road, Bangalore-43, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Prakash Bojraj. 2. Mr. Prakash Bojraj, Proprietor, Espalia Designs and Constructions, R/at Krishna Green Meadows, T3 NRI Layout, Kalkere Main Road, Bangalore- 43, (OPPOSITE PARTY is rep. by Ady. Sri.B. Jayakar) > eo ee ¥° ae siCC,No.:761/2018 BY SRLH.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT. 1. The complainant has filed this com 12 of the C,P Act, 1986 for the payment of i tt by the towards the pending works to be carried oul trusted plaint u/Sec. Rs.5 lakhs complainant as OP did not complete the work en! and for Rs.5 lakhs as damages for causing mental agony, iicoivenience, financial loss, deficiency in service, unfair ‘trade! practice and for not completing the work and for other reliefs as this Commission deems fit under the circumstances, 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; The complainant is the owner of apartment No.410, Sandeep square, Panatur road, Bangalore. OP No.1 is a firm engaged in providing in interior designs and construction services owned by OP No.2 inthe name of Espalia Designs and Constructions ”, A quotation was issued on 07.07.2016 by OP to carry out the interior works for an amount of Rs.9,77,060/- for the entire work. Order booking form/quotation was also issued by OP. It was undertaken by OP that the works will be completed and the house will be delivered within 12 weeks from the date of confirmation of the order/advance payment. 30% of the amount to be paid along with the booking Complainant paid the amount on 22.09.2016 towards of the advance amount, OP was 1 work within 15.12.2016 ie.,CC.No,1761/2018 more money than what was demanded and quoted by the OP by transferring the amount to the Bank account of OP. He has paid a sum of Rs.14,70,000/- to the OP to carry out the work of interiors of his house, which includes a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as financial help as OP requested the complainant to help financially as he was facing some financial problems and further OP assured that the same could be adjusted at the time of completion of the work. OP failed to complete the interior works as assured —~ and hence, the complainant demanded to refund’ the % amount paid by him. After much discussion wit i ites \ was finalized that, the OP has to refund _Rs.7,9 50/2 i Jy) being the amount received from the complainant in respe of uncompleted work and also towards returning of the, borrowed moncy and also assured that he will ascertain the value of the pending work and refund the amount. On 17.05.2017, OP issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs towards partial payment of the amount due from him. The cheque was dishonored for funds insufficient on presentation on 20.05.2017. After repeated demands and requests, again, OP issued a cheque for Rs.7,92,500/- which again got bounced for insufficient funds, for which he has filed a complaint u/sec, 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In spite of repeated requests and continuous demands to complete the pending work and also by sending e-mails, OP did not reply to the e-mails and did not comj pending works, Even when the work was iCC,No.:761/2018 the complainant has admitted his children to the nearby School, he had to shift to his house by July-2017 even though the wood Work, bedroom wardrobes, kitchen wardrobes and others works were still pending. Even though OP has agreed to refund the amount Teceived by him in respect of the unfinished work and “Wedmplete work, OP did not pay the same, His hard catned money has been struck with the OP. He ascertained with the Contractor that an amount of Rs.5 Jakhs is required to complete the pending unfinished work. Bec OUCH inbreceiving the leatire ene tte ae carrying out and completing the interior works as agreed amounts to deficiency in service and not refunding the Smount, amounts to unfair trade practice causing him mental agony, inconvenience, financial loss and breach of ‘trust, Hence, prayed the Commission to allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards the incomplete work and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the damage caused. 3. The brief fa OPPOSITE PARTIES: Upon the service of notice, OP No. 1 and 2 appeared before the fora. The version filed by OP No. 2 has been adopted by OP No. 1 by filing a memo of adoption. In the version filed by OP it is contended that, the complaint is neither maintainable on facts or in Complainant has suppressed the material allegation that, he has quoted Rs,CC.No.: 761/2018 whereas he has done extra work more than the amount he received and that he is ready and willing to get the work assessed by a competent Valuator or a Commissioner. He has only to fix the doors for the cabinet and as per the agreement, against the work of 650 square feet, he has done the work for 950 square feet. He has also carried out the design work for the complainants firm which costed Rs.45,000/-. The said fact has been suppressed by the complainant. 90% of the agreed work has already be completed and he will complete the balance work providéd- ~ the complainant undertakes to pay the balance a unt. Instead of paying the said amount and getting the matter settled amicably, mutually, the complainant has filed this complaint with fabulous and untenable reasons. A\st Rs.3 lakhs is due from the complainant and he has done- more work and the complainant has deviated from the agreed measurement in the work order and forced the workers of OP to do extra work for which it costed extra material and labor. The complainant himself has misused the blank cheques plunge timely taken from him. He is ready to complete the small pending work in the flat if the complainant agrees to pay the balance of amount. He is ready to co-operate with the Court Commissioner if appointed to ascertain the pending works to be carried and the amounts required for completion, The complainant is put to strict proof of the allegation of delay in carrying out the work and deficiency in service. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint and prayed the Commission to dismiss the same.Wy CC.No.:761/2018 4. In order to Prove the case, Complain, ‘ant filed his affidavit evidence and Produced documents, In Spite of giving sufficient Opportunit adduce any evidence, Points arise for our consi ity, OPPOSITE PARTY Arguments Heard. The ideration:- did not \ following mplainant is entitled relief prayed for in the complaint? 5. oO ur answers to the above poi; re; POINT NO.1: in the Affirmative POINT No.2: Partly in the Affirmative For the following, REASONS ©. POINT No.1-. Fetused the complaint, Complainant and the docume; dispute that, the complainant ersion, affidavit evidence of ‘nts produced, It is not in and OP entered into mutualCO.No.:761/2018 7. We have perused the entire documents produced. Especially Ex.P-7 (8 photographs) in respect of the kitchen, the dining hall, kids room, guest room, master bedroom, TV unit in the living room, The said work is incomplete and the doors have not been fixed as agreed. A Court commissioner (an Advocate Sri K. Krishnaprasad) was appointed to visit the spot and report exactly what is the ground situation. After issuing notice to both the parties, he visited the spot and took physical measurement and filed the report. In the report, it is mentioned that, in some of the works only frames have been done, and 1 doors ora not fitted and also there is difference in measuremé vItis mentioned that, in respect of master bedroom? Wardrobe ; | and loft only, basic frame work has been done. of child bedroom, guest bedroom, TV unit wooden beam —— paneling, between hall to dining, wall cabinet in the Hall, wall paneling in the hall, TV Unit box paneling and even in the kitchen also, only the frame work has been done. That means, the work is in complete, Even he has filed a statement in the tabular form as to what is the work carried out, the difference in square fect and the difference in the amount, The photographers produced by him also shows incomplete work. 8. Against the said report, objection was filed both parties and an application was made to ap technical person as Commissioner one Joseph, representing “Germia Samic” Consulti appointed as second CommissiCC.No.:761/2018 According to the Commission Warrant, in Presence of both the parties, he visited the Spot and gave a report with This also shows that, work is partially completed in the site, detailed measurements, Fixing of shutter for the master bedroom with dress, ~~bedroom, ‘hall, dining and po, “fumiture, and cladding were all anlso mentioned the work to be carried out. It is also mentidned the difference in quality and the amount in of the work carried and also KK done at site, children bedroom, guest ja POP work, providing shown as partly completed in respect of extra It is also mentioned that, due to “rence in quality, Rs.4,61,464/- and the amount Tequired for completing the Pending list of work Rs.7,23,641/- and the amount of extra work done by OP is Rs.91,376-54, Commissioner, In view of the above reports of the » it becomes clear that the op though received Rs.14,70,000/- has not completed the work and of the quality work assured, and also did not finish the work &s agreed which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Hence, we answer Point No.l in Affirmative. POINT No. 9. The complainant has sought Rs.5 refunded towards the pending work to 1 was not completed by theCC.No.:761/2018 damages for causing mental agony, inconvenience, financial loss, deficiency in service and un‘air trade practice in not completing the work within the agreed time. 10. It is to be noted here that, as per the complainant's averment, the entire work was agreed to be carried out for Rs.9,77,060/-, As per the second Commissioner’s report, the amount required for comple’ the pending work is Rs.7,23,641/- and an extra work to the extent of Rs.91,376-54 has been carried out by OP! In view of the above, in the interest of both the parties, we | direct the OP to carry out the balance of work esagreed /+/ and as reported by the second Commission within three months out of the amount received already by the complainant i.e, Rs.14,70,000/- which is with the OPPOSITE PARTY for which he had issued cheque to return the said amount said to have been borrowed from the complainant. Failing which, OP is directed to pay a damages of Rs.2 lakh for causing mental agony, hardship and delay in carrying out the work along with interest at 12% p.a on the said amount from the date of fling of this complaint and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, we answer Point No.2 in partly affirmative and pass the following: ORDER ik, Complaint is allowed in part with cost. 2, OP is directed to complete the pending work as pointed in the second commission report within three months from the date of receiving thisCC.No.:761/2018 order by adjusting the amount already with OPPOSITE PARTY, Se Patingiwhich Gpholnayiarauetee Rs.2 lakh as compensation along with interest at 12% P.a from the date of fling this complaint till Payment of entire amount and also towards litigation expenses. ae _Tecover th Rs.25,000/- Liberty is reserved to the complainant to © amount said to have been let to the OFPOSITE PARTY by filing separate si “the ‘law of land, 3 Sa Copy of this order to both parties free, 6f cost. uit subject to ———“_Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra » 03% Day OF OCTOBER 2022) Somme” Seed —— es OBhtol[rore glo ANNEXURES = 1, Witness examined on behalf of the Com; lainant/s Adi ative Oificer Be CW-1 Mr. Sreenivasa Rentala - PW1 LAddi. & Rede Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s Ex.P1: Copy of the Order Booking Form in respect of intehiby Wer -P2: Copy of the emails (6 Nos.) Copy of the receipts issued by OP (6 receipts) Soy of the Bank account statement issued by HDFC @ Nos.) Copy of the Bank account statement issued by SBI Copy of the paytm details through which I have madeCC.No.:761/2018 Ex.P7; Photographs in respect of the work done by the OP (8 Nos.) Ex.P8; Certificate issued u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act. 2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s b way of affidavit: -NIL- , Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite ys Party/s ( a xf -NIL- nu We —raravetign : pestle ae MEMBER MEMBER PRESID! rN shi) 2oaa oa) eho”. >\