BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 168/2001 Filed on 16.04.2001 Dated : 27.02.2010 Complainant: M.S. Muraleedharan Nair, Vijayalayam, Thampuran Kovil Road, Thampuran Nagar, Studio Road, Nemom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Nemom V. Sanjeev)
Opposite party: A.P. Sreekumar, Electrical Contractor, K.V. House, Thempamuttom, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. V. Manikantan Nair)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 05.11.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.12.2009, the Forum on 27.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant entrusted the opposite party all the electrical works of his building including the formalities to change the original electrical tariff and for getting an electrical connection to the said building on 01.10.1999, that opposite party did not perform his part of the promise though he had obtained the application and other documents from the complainant, that thereafter complainant submitted a new application to KSEB after remitting an amount of Rs. 23,964/- as dues for 09.09.1999 to 2000 and got new tariff and connection. It is submitted by by the complainant that it was due to the fault of the opposite party that complainant had to remit such a huge amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to pay Rs. 23,964/- to complainant along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed version contending that para 1 of the complaint is not correct, while para 2 of the complaint is correct, that opposite party never promised that he will do the necessary formalities to change the original electrical tariff of the complainant's building and it is not an electrician's duty to apply for changing the original tariff obtained by the complainant. It is a matter between the complainant and the electricity Board that no such tariff change has been mentioned in the rate of quotation given by the opposite party to the complainant. Opposite party vehemently denied the averment that the opposite party obtained the application for changing the original tariff from the complainant for presenting the same before KSEB Section Office on 01.10.1999. Opposite party never told the complainant that he will take necessary steps to change the tariff and complainant never approached the opposite party for the same. Opposite party in his reply notice stated the true and actual facts. Complainant has not paid labour charges to the opposite party and a total amount of Rs. 40,000/- is due to him from the complainant. Opposite party has undertaken the work of the complainant as directed by the proprietor, U.K. Agencies and Electricals, Elankam Gardens, Thiruvananthapuram. When the complainant refused part payment for the work done, opposite party completed the work without payment only because of the assurance given by the aforesaid proprietor regarding the payment after the entire work. After completing the works opposite party approached the complainant on several occasions for payment and he made many excuses for the payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what amount? Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost?
In support of the claim, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts. D1 & D2 were marked.
Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant entrusted the opposite party all the electrical works of his building including the formalities to change the original electrical tariff and for getting an electrical connection to the said building, that opposite party did not perform his part of the promise though he had obtained the application and other documents from the complainant, that thereafter complainant submitted a new application to KSEB after remitting an amount of Rs. 23,964/- as dues for 09.09.1999 to 2000 and get new tariff connection. Ext. P1 is the copy of the installation completion report, signed by the opposite party. Ext. P2 is the copy of the application to get new electric connection to the said building. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice. Ext. P4 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt. Ext. P6 is the copy of the adjustment invoice issued by the KSEB. It is argued by the opposite party that he never promised the complainant that he will do necessary formalities to change the original electrical tariff of the complainant's building, that it is not an electrician's duty to apply for changing tariff-obtained by the complainant for the initial stage of construction of his house and that it is purely a matter between the complainant and KSEB. It is further argued by the opposite party that complainant has so far not paid labour charges to the opposite party and a total amount of Rs. 40,000/- is due to him from the complainant. It is the say of the opposite party that he had undertaken the work of the complainant as directed by Mr. K. Udayakumar, Proprietor. U.K. Agencies and Electricals, Elankom Gardens, Thiruvananthapuram, that opposite party completed the work without payment only because of the assurance given by the aforesaid Udayakumar regarding the payment after the entire work. Ext. D1 is the copy of the quotation. Ext. D2 is the copy of the reply notice to Ext. P3 notice dated 10.03.2001. Complainant has never furnished any material showing the payment of any amount to opposite party. Complainant has no case that opposite party has not completed the entrusted electrical work in his building. There is no material to attribute any deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The onus of establishing the case will rest on the complainant. Complainant failed to establish the complaint. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 27th day of February 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 168/2001 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of the installation report P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 01.10.1999 P3 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 03.03.2001 P4 - Acknowledgement card addressed to opposite party P5 - Postal receipt P6 - Photocopy of adjustment invoice P7 - Brochure containing rules & regulations of Electricity Board.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Photocopy of quotation D2 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 12.03.2001
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
