JAGMOHAN SWAMIDAS CHANDRANI Vs. VIVEKTA DESIGNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagmohan Swamidas Chandrani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed his complaint against Vivekta Designs (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent'). The Appellant in his complaint before the State Commission has contended that he had entrusted the interior decoration of his Flat No. 3D, Paramount, 25-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata to the Respondent on 27.1.2005 initially for Rs. 19,96,250 which after negotiations was settled at Rs. 17,50,000 and an advance of Rs. 1 lakh was given. Thereafter another advance of Rs. 11,75,000 as demanded by Respondent was given for buying raw materials, wood, electrical cables, switches etc. which would facilitate completion of work. Appellant also executed an MoU with the Respondent confirming the negotiated price of Rs. 17,50,000 and detailing the actual works to be undertaken. However, the scope of work and its value was again revised to Rs. 9,75,000 and on demand by Respondent, another sum of Rs. 50,000 was advanced with an assurance from Respondent that the final adjustment based on the bill of the revised work valued at Rs. 9,75,000 would be made. However, the Respondent did not adhere to its assurances regarding completion of work and on pointing these out to Respondent, Respondent demanded more money to complete the work. Since, this was a settled issued, Appellant did not agree to pay any more money after which Respondent unilaterally withdrew its workmen and left the entire place in shambles without completing the work. Since there was no response from Respondent on repeated calls made by the Appellant, he got an assessment of the work done by approved Valuers who stated that it came to only Rs. 5,16,490. Appellant therefore asked the Respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 6,58,510 which he had paid in advance. Appellant also had to get the work completed by another agency to make the place habitable and in the meantime, he had to live in rented premises which cost him Rs. 1,45,750. Since the Respondent did not respond to the Appellant's notices, he filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested for a refund of Rs. 6,58,510 taken in excess by the Respondent without completing the corresponding work as also compensation of Rs. 15,50,000 for causing mental agony and harassment to him as well as to his aged parents.

(2.) Respondent while admitting that an advance amount of Rs. 11,75,000 was paid by the Appellant to the Respondent only after he was satisfied with the work done by the Respondent, stated that some non-estimated works amounting to Rs. 3 lakh were also undertaken by Respondent subsequently at the behest of the Appellant and a letter enclosing a statement of accounts detailing the said non-estimated works as also supervision and execution charges totalling Rs. 5,75,000 which was payable by the Appellant was sent to him which was accepted without any demur. Appellant, however, failed to make the payment and therefore, the Respondent could not complete the interior works because of default in payment on the part of the Appellant for which Respondent cannot be held responsible. Respondent further stated that it had no knowledge nor was it informed about the appointment of any Valuer which was done behind its back and without giving an opportunity to intervene in the matter. Respondent had also written to the Appellant in this connection. Therefore, it was the Appellant who was guilty of committing breach of terms of payments by not paying the Respondent's legitimate dues and appointing a Valuer behind Respondent's back, thus causing unnecessary misery and financial suffering to the Respondent.

(3.) The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, dismissed the complaint. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced: