State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.M/S. Home Lane.Com vs Sri. Chirag Raval, on 18 July, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.391 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.227 OF 2016, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-RANGA REDDY
Between:
1.M/s.Homelane.com a company Incorporated under Companies Act, Having its registered office at Ernakulam, Kerala, represented by Its Corporate Office at 4th Floor, Bikaner Pinnacle, No.1 Rhenius Street, Off Richmond Road, Bangluru - 25.
Landmark: Behind Coffee Day on Richmond Road.
2. M/s.Homelane.com 2nd Floor, Tirumala Platinum, Near Gachibowli Flyover, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032 Hyd. Branch Rep. by authorized officer.
....Appellants/Opp.Parties No.1 and 2And Sri Chirag Raval, S/o.Sri Narenderbhai C.Raval, Aged: 39, Occ: Salaried Online Media Executive, R/o.Flat No.H-G 08, Rainbow Vista Rock Garden, Green Hills, IDL Road, Moosapet Road, Hyderabad - 500 072.
.....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties 1 and 2: M/s.N.Prathap Kumar Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Part-in-person QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO,...MEMBER-JUDICIAL TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble I/c President)
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986, praying this Commission to set aside the award/order dated 13.02.2020 passed in CC.No.227/2016 before the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy, consequently dismissing the complaint of the Respondent herein, also punish the 2 Respondent/Complainant with huge fine for all the harassment the Complainant made to this Petitioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the Complainant had engaged the Opposite Parties for the interior works at his Flat No.H-G08, Rainbow Vistas Rock Garden Apartments, Moosapet, Hyderabad. The Opposite Parties agreed for work as per the terms and conditions of the contract which was sent to the Complainant through mail on 08.01.2016. The Opposite Parties had to complete the electrical, false ceiling, EPT, kitchen cabinets, wardrobes, TV unit in central hall, crockery unit in dining room and shoe rack etc. The Opposite Parties appointed unskilled men and took the wrong measurements without consulting the Complainant. However, the first installation was done on 13.02.2016 as per mail dated 26.01.2016.
4. It is submitted that the Complainant handed over the keys of the flat to the Opposite Parties personnel who lost it and they replaced the lock by which the Complainant was put to trouble and sufferings. Further, the Complainant gave advance cheques for a total sum of Rs.8,48,467/- on various dates i.e., 13.10.2015, 29.12.2015, 31.12.2015 and 09.03.2016 respectively. It was made clear not to present the cheque bearing No.172452 unless the work is completed, but the Opposite Parties presented the said cheque.
5. It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties deposited the cheque for Rs.3,98,467/- and it was cleared. The Opposite Parties appointed poor skilled artisans which resulted in damage to the wall of each room and the Complainant had to live in a guest house for a period of 6 months as the work was not completed within the stipulated time. Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.3
6. The Opposite Party No.2 filed written version which was adopted by Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or on law as the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. It is admitted that the Complainant engaged the Opposite Parties for interior décor of the flat mentioned supra as per the quotation accepted by the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant had created a story to gain wrongfully. The Opposite Parties shared all the measurements through design, drawings which was counter signed by the Complainant on 31.12.2015.
7. Clause No.2 clearly states that the client must pay the 100% of the quotation value before the finished material is delivered and the Complainant had to pay Rs.86,661/- to the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Parties further stated that the key of the flat was lost by their personnel unfortunately but they replaced the lock immediately. They stated that the Complainant created hurdles for completion of work.
8. It is further stated that the Complainant gave cheques to the Opposite Parties and instructed not to present the cheque for Rs.172452 unless the work is completed, but as per Mr.Srihari's (General Manager, Operations) email dated 09.05.2016, they presented the cheque after Mr.Srihari's discussion with the Complainant. Clause No.2 of the Works Contract clearly states that the client has to pay complete 100% of the quotation value before the material is delivered at the customer's site. In spite of constant communication and visits to the site, the Complainant filed a false complaint which was registered as FIR.No.633/2016 dated 23.11.2016 at Kukatpally P.S. The Opposite Parties are confident of completing the work in a short time. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
9. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A22 are marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed and Ex.B1 to B12 are marked on their behalf.
410. The District Forum after hearing and considering the material on record allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of rent, physical strain, mental agony such as loss of reputation and prestige and litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days, failing which the interest shall be calculated @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of default till the date of realization.
11. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Appellants/Opposite Parties filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Forum failed to consider the written version of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.
There is no discussion or finding with regard to the maintainability of the complaint in view of clause 6 of the work contract.
The District Forum ought to have considered that as per clause 2 the client must pay the complete 100% of the quotation value before the finished material is delivered at the customer's site.
The District Forum failed to observe that except stating that the Opposite Party had not completed the work within 45 days, there is no other contention raised by the Complainant in his case.
Unfortunately, the Opposite Parties could not file their evidence affidavit before the District Forum. But they already filed their written version and the contents thereof were sufficient to dismiss the complaint.
It is true that the delay made by the Opposite Parties in completion of the work which was not done deliberately or wanton but due to unforseen reasons which will be clear only if the documents filed by the Opposite Parties are examined.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any 5 error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
13. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
14. The Respondent/Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.8,48,467/- vide Ex.A7 and engaged the services of the Appellants/Opposite Parties for interior works in his Flat No.H- G08, Rainbow Vistas Rock Garden Apartments, Moosapet, Hyderabad. The Contract of Agreement filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties as Ex.B2 is executed on 08.01.2016 and the scope of services provided by them are listed as follows:
1.1 : The scope of the services ("Services") provided by HomeLane are as follows:
1.1.1 Designing of Home Interiors 1.1.2 Provision of customized Home furniture 1.1.3 Installation at customer's site Lastly, 1.2 clauses reads as follows: 1.2 : HomeLane shall deliver/install the Services within 45 days (Forty Five) days from the date of completion of all the following requirements:
1.2.1 : Both parties signing off on the design and specifications for the services.
1.2.2 : Your payment of the advance of 50% (fifty percent) of the total price (as defined hereafter) and 1.2.3 : Your preparation of the site in accordance with the 'site readiness checklist' provided to you by HomeLane.
15. The Respondent/Complainant has relied on the email correspondence filed vide Ex.A1 to A20 from 29.06.2016 to 04.03.2017 seeking rectification for the works done. In fact, in many of the emails, the Chief Operating Officer of the Appellants/Opposite Parties Mr.Prabhu Venkatesh has replied that "they are ready to replace the wardrobe, crockery unit, Foyer Unit and Kitchen wall unit etc., and require 25 days to get the work completed as they need to get the production from Bangalore 6 (Ex.A1). He has also offered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the delay.
16. The Respondent/Complainant has raised the grievance not only for the delay, but also for the sub-standard quality of work submitted. He has filed numerous photographs vide Ex.A22 which have been rebutted by the Appellants/Opposite Parties vide Ex.B6. It is unfortunate that an advocate commissioner report was not adverted to, to know the exact extent of unfinished or incomplete work as contended by the Respondent/Complainant. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed Ex.B3, where specific measurements were taken and drawings submitted. Although the Appellants/Opposite Parties have done a major amount of work, the Respondent/Complainant was not satisfied and the email correspondence between both sides is sufficient to establish that the Appellants/Opposite Parties have been deficient.
17. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have urged the ground that they cannot be made liable and that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. When the CPO has been answering all the emails and accepting that they would like to address the defects regarding the interior work, we find this ground rather superfluous. A Company is represented by its M.D., Director or the Chief Operating Officer. The Appellant/Opposite Party being a Private Limited Company is to act through its M.D. and or Directors/or representatives and they are responsible for the conduct of it in day to day affairs.
18. Insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, this Commission has the necessary authority since the Respondent/Complainant has filed the present case in the place where he resides and also the Appellant/Opposite Party has an office and carried on business. The Forum below has properly considered all these material evidences and concluded that the Respondent/Complainant has had to live in a guest house for a period of six months as the work was not completed in time.
719. The entire documentary evidence discloses the fact that despite receiving the agreed amount, the Appellants/Opposite Parties failed to complete the work entrusted to them and this amounts to deficiency in service. As the Appellants/Opposite Parties did not raise the ground for a proper assessment of work pending, the awarded amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is a just compensation for the loss of rent and disappointment suffered by the Respondent/Complainant. Hence, we find no reason to interfere or modify the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Commission, Ranga Reddy made in CC.No.227/2016 dated 13.02.2020 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt: 18.07.2023
UC*