SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38308

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Smt.Deepa.P.V. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Studio Arc – Respondent
SC/29/CC/255/2019



Petitioner Advocates:V.B.Shiva Kumar ,Respondent Advocate: K N S

sct29lccl255l2(JL9 Date of filing: 27.05.2019 Date of disPosal: 16.10.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSU]'IER DISPUTES REDRiSSAL CO]I IIISSION, BENGALU RU ( PRINCIPAL BENCH T PRESENT CORAT{: HON'BLE MT. TUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT and ].lrs. DIWASHREE l'l - L'ADY I'IEMBER scl29lcct2s5t20L9 Mrs. DeePa.P.V, Wo. V.B. Ramkumar, Aged About 38 Years, Flat No.T-l, 8-801, 8h Floor, Mahindra LifesPace Windchimes, Arekere, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore-560 076.

(Rep. by Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, .....Complainant/s.

Advocate)

Yls'

-

1) M/s. Studio Arc, ProprietorshiP busi ness concern, Having its business in Fabrication, Designing and Interior Decoration, sct29tcct2s5t20t9 No.10, 7h Main, 7s'A'Cross, Rajeevnaga r, Padmana bhanagar, Bangalore-560 085.

Rep. by its Proprietorix -

M/s. Arpita Ramachandra.

2) Mls. Arpita Ramachandra, Name of father and husband known to the complainant, Proprietorix-

M/s. Studio Arc, Proprietorship business concern, Having its business in Fabrication, Deisgning and Interior Decoration, No.10, 7h Main, 7h'A'Cross, Rajeevnagar, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-560 085.

(Respondent by Sri. Syed pafi/s.

.....Opposite Khamruddin, Advocate)

ORAL ORDER (PER:HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Ad, 1986 seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the opposite parties to compensate RS.25rOO,OOO/- for removing the salvaged unfinished, unprofessional interiorc carried-out in the apartment prcmises of the complainant at the cost of the *l29lcct25St20t9 complainant and to recover the same trom ttre oPPosite Pafties'

(b) AlternativelY, Permit -the to canT-out the interiorc comolainant as ii is exigent and immediate for her of the iJr occupltion, apartment Premises.

premises.

(c) For award directing the ^opPolsit:

to oarties compensate Rs'5,OOrOOO/- ["*iio" mental harassment caused by ifre opposite parties for non-completion

(rl) To make p 'in a s ym ta e tl n a t t i o o f n R S'45,OOO/- as ].it iirr tne work carried-

in Lri uv another Professional the at (e) To awald interest t8o/o Per inhu. on the amount Paid bY the pafties-till to the opposite "o-pfain"nftr om the date on which the reali-zation to t"-pl"in"nt Paid amounts the opposite Parties.

(f) For cost and such other expenses as fit inis non'Ule Commassion deems to pio' in the facts and circumstances, of the interiors.

the case.

02.Thebrieffactsofthecaseofthecomplainantisthat, she is the owner of flat bearing No' 8-801 situated at 8h Arekre, Bannerghatta Main Floor, Mahindra Windchimes, Road, Bangalore' The complainant was searching for interior decorators. She came to know about the profile of the opposite party No.1 for which opposite party No'2 is the proprietor. On O4.O2.2OL} complainant entrusted the scl2stccl255l2(,a9 interiorworkswiththeoppositepartyNos.l&2andthe was fixed for the renovation at consideration out of which the complainant has paid Rs.19,98,320/-, parties' Opposite parties to the opposite Rs.17,14,000/-

the renovation work' but they have deployed undertook used poor quality materials' the work was unprofessionals, instead of doing the interiors' they have unfinished, the flat. Hence on 11'04'2019 complainant has damaged of the renovation work'

issued a notice for termination parties have accepted the termination and offered Opposite two cheques one for Rs'5,00'OO0/-' dated: 1t'04'2019'

anotherchequeforRs.12,13,986l-,dated:19.04'2019.

the quality of the work got the evaluated The complainant & 2 with conducted by opposite Parlry Nos'1 HAFELE professional who has certified that' the interior work is sub- standard. The complainant suffered loss of Rs'25'00'000/- as the cheque was issued for the lesser amount even lesser thantheadvancewaspaid.Thecomplainantdidnot the cheques and after issuing notice filed the encashed complaint before the District Commission'

03. The opposite party Nos'1 & 2 have appeared through their advocate, but they have not filed the version' Before filed her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top