CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th January, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 24/06/2014
CC /91/2014
Thatha,
W/o.Late.Pazhanimala,
Ayyappankavu Veedu, : Complainant
Karingarapulli P.O, Palakkad
(By Adv.N.Rakhi)
Vs
Ratheesh,
S/o.Arumugan, Kakkathara Veedu, : Opposite party
Thiruvalathur P.O, Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant in this case is an old aged lady living alone in the house which was in a dialaplated condition. She entrusted for renovation works of her house with opposite party to put up asbestos sheet and to construct gate and to fix doors. The complainant paid Rs.27,000/- to the opposite party who is very well known to her. On 22/01/2014 opposite party purchased the materials for the renovation work and kept it in his shop. Opposite party then send coolie workers for doing the works without his supervision. Due to the opposite party’s careless attitude there are so many defects in the works done by the workers. The work was not completed also. Hence the complainant requested several times to the opposite party to complete the work and to cure the defects, since the complainant was staying alone in her house with nobody to look after her. But the opposite party had not taken any steps to complete the work nor to return back the amount he had received. After that the complainant filed a complaint before the North Police station stating the above facts. The opposite party returned an amount of Rs.10,500/- before the Sub Inspector of Police to the complainant and promised before the Sub Inspector that he will either complete the work and cure the defects or return back the balance amount with the cost of damages. But the opposite party did not act upon. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served to the opposite party but he remained absent. Hence opposite party was called absent and set exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with supporting documents to prove her case. She had also taken out an Advocate Commission who had inspected the property and filed a detailed report. Ext.A1-A4 was marked from the part of the complainant and the commission report was marked as Ext.C1.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
party?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
From the report filed by the commissioner it is obvious that the opposite party had not completed the works as entrusted by the complainant. She had also noted certain major defects with respect to the works done at the complainant’s house. Since the opposite party remained exparte, and there is no other contradictory evidence to disprove the allegations stated in the complaint, the complaint is allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred only) to the complainant along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by her and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of this complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of January 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Hindusthan Steels Bill for Rs.9,856/- dtd.22/01/2014 in the name of complainant
Ext.A2- Quotation of Rs.16,867/- dtd.22/01/2014
Ext.A3 series - Photocopies of lawyer notice dtd.23/05/2014 and postal receipts
Ext.A4- Returned notice unclaimed dtd.26/05/2014 .
Ext.C1 - Commission Report- Adv.Hanitha
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.3,000/- as cost.
