State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Goverdhan Nopany vs M/S. Axiom Interiors Pvt. Ltd. on 19 April, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/79/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/12/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/204/2014 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Goverdhan Nopany Flat no. 9B, Block no.3, Silver Spring, 5, J.B. S Halden Avenue, Kolkata - 700 105. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Axiom Interiors Pvt. Ltd. PTI Building, 7th floor, Block DP-9, Sector -V, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091. 2. Ms. Chitralekha Biswas 677B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata - 700 034. 3. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Kaul P-271, Sector -21, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida- 201 301, Uttar Pradesh. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Pradip Kumar Sarawagi , Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. S. Chakraborty., Advocate Dated : 19 Apr 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 22-12-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C. C. No. 204/2014.
In short, case of the Complainant, is that, on or about December, 2012, the Complainant entered into an Agreement with the OPs for the purpose of interior decoration of his flat. As the OPs failed to meet the deadline, they requested the Complainant vide letter dated 11-06-2013 to extend the time for completion of assigned job. On their prayer, the Complainant, vide his letter dated 13-06-2013 gave his nod. It is alleged that although he has made full payment to the OPs, but the latter did not complete the job. Being dissatisfied and disappointed with the service of the OPs, the Complainant ultimately cancelled the Agreement vide letter dated 08-10-2013 and requested the OPs to handover the key of the flat and refund Rs. 2,50,000/- that he paid in excess to the OPs. As the OPs did not handover the key of the flat in question, Complainant had to pay monthly rent during the period from October, 2013 to January, 2014 @ Rs, 50,000/- per month. The Complainant, by sending an Advocate's notice on 16-12-2013 requested the OPs to send their representative to carry out due inspection of movable properties as well as other belongings lying in the said flat. However, the OPs did not turn up. So, the Complainant hired an independent agency to do the same. During inspection, it was found that goods worth Rs. 43,626/- went missing. Subsequently, the Complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 8,15,626/- from the OPs through his Ld. Advocate on 13-01-2014. Since the OPs did not pay any heed to such notice, Complainant filed the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum for redressal of his grievance.
Case of the OP No. 2, on the contrary, is that, as per the projected time line specified in the purported agreement, the work was to be completed within 75 days and the terms of payment was specified as 60% before start of work, 35% after completion of 50% work and the balance 5% after completion of work, at the time of handover. It was further agreed upon between the parties that after completion of 50% of the work, the work order could not be terminated. It is also stated that as against the initial quotation of Rs. 11,92,074/-, Complainant only paid Rs. 10,45,000/-. Further, on the request of the Complainant, the OPs did some extra work. Total dues from the Complainant as per the record of the OP No. 1 stood at Rs. 4,26,196/-, which was exclusive of dues on account of taxes. Moreover, the Complainant failed and neglected to adhere to the payment schedule. The work could not be completed within the scheduled time as the Complainant failed to make due payment within the stipulated time frame. The OPs had all the good intentions to complete the design and decoration of the Apartment. Therefore, despite non-receipt of due payment from the Complainant, they continued to execute the work till economy hard hit them. It is further stated that the Apartment was a freehold property. Therefore, there was no question of payment of rent to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. OPs further denied that valuable goods went missing while they were carrying out interior works at the said Apartment and put the Complainant to strict proof thereof. It is further pointed out that on one hand the Complainant alleged that he could not gain access to the Apartment and on the other; it is claimed by the Complainant that he purchased carpets and Ganesh idol worth Rs. 43,626/- on 24-06-2013 and put the same inside the Apartment while the renovation work was in progress. Disputing the claim of the Complainant for a sum of Rs. 8,15,626/-, this OP made a counter claim of Rs. 4,26,196/- plus dues on account of taxes and interest.
Point for determination is whether in the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is justified or not.
Decision with reasons The dispute relates to alleged non-competition of interior work by the Respondents that the Appellant assigned to them.
It is claimed by the Appellant that he made an excess payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Respondents. On the other hand, it is contended by the Respondents that the Appellant owe them a sum of Rs. 4,26,196/- plus taxes and interest. It is also alleged by the Respondents that they did several extra works beyond the scope of the Agreement in question. Further, the Appellant has also accused the Respondents of stealing the idol of Sri Ganesh and Carpet worth Rs. 43,626/-.
Before we delve further into the matter, let us make it crystal clear that adjudication of theft related disputes fall within the exclusive domain of Criminal Court and Consumer Fora is not the right Forum to agitate such issues.
Turning back our focus on the pivot of this case, we find it indeed strange that none of the parties engaged any licensed Valuer to assess the value of work done by the Respondents. Thus, on what basis such claims and counter claims have been made by the parties is not understood. We afraid, we do not deem it wise to adjudicate a case purely on surmises and conjecture.
Be that as it may, on a thoughtful consideration of the complaint and the written version, as also on perusal of documents on record, it appears to us that the dispute involves complicated questions of facts. It hardly requires any emphasis that in such a scenario, it is imperative that a great deal of evidence - both oral as well as documentary is advanced by the parties to prove their respective cases.
Given that proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature, adjudication of issues which involve complex factual questions cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction.
We are fully conscious of the fact that the amount at stake in this case is in few lakhs while we are adjudicating disputes of much higher consideration. However, keeping in mind the necessity of enormous amount of evidence that is essential in this case to come to a definite conclusion, we feel, we should better exercise hands off policy and leave it for the Civil Court to decide it.
We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., reported in I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) : 2002 (1) SCALE, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper place to dispose of such a case in summary fashion.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed.
Hence, O R D E R E D That A/79/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents without any cost. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable. The Appellant would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court and he may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing his case before the Consumer Fora.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Forum together with the LCR forthwith. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER