Skip to main content

Unfinished work costs interior designer Rs 1.17L

The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a Sector 21-based interior designer to pay around Rs 1.17 lakh to two city residents for not completing the work at their house within the deadline.

Dr Inderpal Singh Sidhu and his son Manpreet Sidhu accused Amar Partap Singh Sidhu, proprietor of WE Design Interior Contractors and Designers House, Sector 21, of not finishing the renovation work of one of their rooms in the house in four weeks despite taking money.

According to the agreement, the work was to be completed in 28 days and payment made in four installments. The first payment was made and work commenced on December 8, 2013. It was to be completed by January 8, 2014. However, even after making most of the payment in three installments, the work was incomplete.

The complainants alleged the designer harassed them for making the third installment and assured completion of work by January 15, 2014. "The designer then discontinued the work, disappeared and even stopped answering phone calls. Despite having received Rs 1.34 lakh out of the total of Rs1.73 lakh, the designer failed to complete the work," the complaint stated.

The counsel for the designer urged the complainants had not approached this forum with clean hands and were making contradictory statements. He said the case was beyond the purview of the consumer fora. He argued Sidhu illegally seized instruments and ousted the workers of the designer from the site. He even claimed Manpreet Sidhu during the renovation work went abroad and defaulted in making the payment.

The forum, however, questioned why the designer did not lodge any report with the police or sent any legal notice to the complainants.

The complainants also produced copy of comments uploaded on January 2 on a website by one Sunita Ghosh claiming that "We Design" was not competent and unprofessional.

Finding merit in the complaint, the forum directed Amar Partap Singh Sidhu to refund Rs 67,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from January 15, 2014, till actual realization, pay Rs 40,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Unfinished-work-costs-interior-designer-Rs-1-17L/articleshow/47127670.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even