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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...