State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V. Sathish, vs Indian Interior Designers, on 25 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/195/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/09/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/135/2014 of District Rangareddi) 1. V. Sathish, S/o Bhaskar Rao, aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o 23, HI Raise, KVR Paadise, Batchupally Cross Road, Batchupally, Hyderabad. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Indian Interior Designers, Rep. by its Proprietor, V.Rajesekhar, Flat No.7913, Nilevalley Project, Janapriya Townshop, Madeenaguda, Hyderabad. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 25 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 195 of 2015 AGAINST CC No. 135 of 2014, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY Between: V.Satish, S/o Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 23, HI Raise, KVR Paradise, Batchupally Cross Road, Batchupally, Hyderabad. ... Appellant/Complainant AND Indian Interior Designers, Rep. by its Proprietor V.Rajashekar, Flat No.7913, Nilevalley Project, Janapriya Township, Madeenaguda, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellant : M/s,G.Vasantha Rayudu. Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. P.L.N.Simham & Associates Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Thursday, the Twenty Fifth Day of January Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 made in CC 135 of 2014 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he agreed with the opposite party Interior designer to take up for false-ceiling at Rs.1,80,000/- and for interior works at Rs.5,40,000/- in his newly purchased house In Batchupally on 29.11.2012 to be completed within 45 to 60 days. Opposite Party commenced the work on 29.11.2012 but even after 6 months some 10 to 15% of the work remained unfinished. By 27.12.2012 he paid an amount of Rs.7,64,000/- and also a cheque for Rs.49,000/- was given. The opposite party used poor quality material and poor workmanship, due to which, one of the mirrors came out and fell on his mother causing bleeding injury. Inspite of reporting the same, Opposite Party never bothered to do the needful. He had to incur an additional expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for repairs and modifications in the false-ceiling and another Rs.60,000/- for interior designing. Upon estimation, he came to know that Opposite Party quoted about Rs.1,00,000/- excess price for the works given to him. Despite constant follow up, the opposite party did not bother to rectify or complete the works. A legal notice was issued on 22.02.2014 demanding Opposite Party to complete the works and rectify the defects. Opposite Party did not volunteer to complete the works and instead raised frivolous claims of compensation and loss and hence the complaint to direct the Opposite Party (i) to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards charges paid for balance works, repairs and rectification in complainant's house (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pass appropriate orders.
4) The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, contending that it has already taken up interior design works in 3 houses in the same community. After seeing the same, complainant himself approached Opposite Party. Though the quotations were given on 29.11.2012, no promise was made to complete the work within 45 to 60 days. The progress of the work depends upon payments made by the complainant. By 25.07.2013 the work was completed and complainant took possession of the house. A final bill was raised on 30.06.2013 which was not paid by the complainant who stayed in the house upto 25.12.2013. Complainant never raised any dispute regarding the quality of work. After complainant vacated the house also Opposite Party was in touch with complainant who did not pay the bill inspite of several requests. On 20.02.2014 complainant issued a legal notice, to which, Opposite Party issued a reply on 07.03.2014, in which, he called upon the complainant to fix the date for inspection of the house to identify the incomplete and defective works and also demanded payment of the balance amount. The complainant is still to pay Rs.4,25,000/- due in the final bill. Though originally the estimation was for Rs.7,25,000/- the actual work done was Rs.10,65,500/- and so far only an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- was paid. Complainant visited Opposite Party's office and misbehaved with a lady staff regarding which she filed a police complaint. In the legal notice issued by complainant there is no whisper about excess rates to have been quoted by the Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-4 and the opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked as B1 to B4. Both counsel submitted written as well as oral arguments.
6). The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments by both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant agreed with the respondent/opposite party Interior designer to take up for false-ceiling at Rs.1,80,000/- and for interior works at Rs.5,40,000/- in his newly purchased house in Batchupally on 29.11.2012.
11). The contention of the appellant/complainant is that in spite of payment of Rs.7,64,000/- by 27.12.2012 and also a cheque for Rs.49,000/- and despite assurance that the work would be completed within 45 to 60 days, the respondent/opposite party did not complete even after six months, that too, used inferior quality and he incurred an additional expenditure amount of Rs.50,000/- for repairs and modifications in the false-ceiling and another Rs.60,000/- for interior designing and he came to know that respondent/ opposite Party quoted about Rs.1,00,000/- excess. On the other hand, the respondent/opposite party, rebutting the same, contended that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that there is inferior quality of work and further contended that though originally the estimation was for Rs.7,64,000/- the actual work done was Rs.10,65,500/- and so far only an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- was paid by the complainant and still he is due to pay Rs.4,25,000/- and to avoid the said payment the complaint is filed.
12). Ex.B1 to B3 show the actual interior work done by the respondent/ opposite party. The District Forum, relying on the legal notices on both sides, Ex.A2 and reply notice dated 07.03.2014, observed that for the legal notice of the appellant/complainant to complete the remaining 10 to 15% works within 15 days, the respondent/opposite party replied that he was wiling to come to the appellants/complainant's house to identity any defects or unfinished works pointed out by him expressed his willingness to complete the said unfinished works and rectify the defects pointed out if any and that the appellant/complainant did not come forward and avail the opportunity to avoid payment of balance amount and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party.
13). It cannot be proved on the basis of the photographs whether the respondent/opposite party done poor workmanship and When the respondent/opposite party failed to complete the unfinished work, it is the responsibility of the appellant/complainant to prove the same and it has to be proved by a technical expert appointed by the Consumer Fora, but, not on the basis of the report of the advocate commissioner. Further, it is not denied by the appellant/complainant that he is not liable to pay any amount due to the respondent/opposite party, except, arguing that the opposite party has escalated the amounts and submitted Ex. B1 and B2, which are contrary to the quotation and it is his responsibility to prove the same with cogent evidence and technical expert report, but, he failed to prove the alleged defects. Hence we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 in CC 135 of 2014 passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 25.01.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER