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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more