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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more