SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. SPACE DESIGN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is a well-known eminent Mathematician. As per facts stated in the application she is an Astrologer, who has been giving astrological consultations and advice to the people approaching her. She also undertakes extensive travel abroad in connection with her work. She has accommodation available with her at Delhi, Bangalore, Mumbai, Madras etc. It so happened that she purchased an Embassy Apartment, 15, Ali Askar Road, Bangalore about 6-7 years back. For the interior design work in the said apartment, she hired services of one Ms. Nandini Shankar c/o M/s. Space Design, 3/1, Gangadhar Chetty, Bangalore. The respondent was required to do the interior work including making of the beds, some furniture, cup-boards as well to improve upon the electrical facilities and provide a room for consultancy services. M/s. Space Design is stated to have not only not adhered to the specifications given for carrying out the work, it also constructed a Bar in the drawing room for which no instructions were said to have been given. The interior work done was also not in accordance with the suggestions of the applicant and the wooden work carried out was found to be shabby and sub-standard. Even electrical wires were not covered which led the applicant to file a petition before this Commission under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), seeking compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- for the alleged deficiency in services on the part of the respondent.

(2.) Pursuant to the notice issued under Sec.12b of the Act, Ms. Nandini Shanker while challenging the maintainability of the proceeding refuted all the allegations on merits. It is the contention of the respondent that at no stage the applicant conveyed that she intended to stay on the ground floor of the said apartment and that the access to the upper portion of the apartment is to be from inside the house. In fact an impression given was that the aforesaid portion of the apartment was to be given on rent to the Senior Executives of multi-national companies for which the provision for Bar was to be made. The work carried out was strictly in conformity to the suggestions given by the applicant, designs submitted by the respondent and the work supervised by the applicant. On many occasions the applicant was accompanied by one Mrs. Rajashree Himatsingka, who was introduced as one of the tenants and wife of the Managing Director of M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited. The latter also monitored the progress of the work. The present application was contended to have been filed to counter the civil suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- due to her. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether this application is maintainable in view of the objections taken in para 1 of the reply (2) If the above is in favour of the applicant then whether the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the petition (3) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the consumer or consumers in general (4) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage due to the above (5) Relief, if any.

(3.) Affidavit and counter affidavits along with supporting documents were filed on both sides. Ms. Nandini Shanker deposed on behalf of the respondent and Ms. Shakuntla Devi was cross-examined by Mr. Joseph Pookat, Counsel for the respondent.