October 2006, the opposite parties approached the complainant and the tank was fixed on the pillar and repaired the crack caused at the time of unloading. The opposite party filled water and fish, and made the aquarium functioning clean on the very same day. The complainant paid Rs.15,927/- for the cost of the aquarium and an estimate was given by the opposite party for the same. But the tank happened to start leaking on December 2006 onwards. Due to the same, the fish and other particles in the aquarium were destroyed. The complainant approached the opposite party several times for repairing the aquarium. On February 2007, the opposite party again came to the Clinic of the complainant. The opposite party again repaired the aquarium and told the complainant that they have used imported glues with foreign technology, so it will not cause any damages in future. They also gave an estimate of Rs.2,667/- for the repairing and the complainant paid the same. Again the tank became defective on October 2007 onwards, the leakage problem was not at all cured by the opposite party. The complainant several times informed the matter to the opposite party, but the opposite party never responded. On 6th day of March 2008, the complainant's wife and her sister approached the opposite party and requested him to repair the fish tank. But the Ist opposite party misbehaved and used abuse words against them. The complaint is filed against the opposite party for compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and his wife and also for getting the price of the defective fish tank.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version. The 2nd opposite party is the son of the Ist opposite party. They admitted that they have supplied a fish tank to the complainant for fixing in his Clinic. But there was no such crack was happened on the glass tank at any situation. After finishing the work of the fish tank, bill was given by the opposite party. But the complainant did not pay the entire bill and told the opposite party that the bill was very hike. The complainant only disbursed Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party when a bill of Rs.15,927/- was given. No such leakage was caused to the glass tank. After 8 months, the complainant requested the opposite party for cleaning the fish tank but the opposite party never responded because the previous bill was pending. There was a small aquarium fixed in the complainant's Clinic previously and once the opposite party repaired the same. A bill was given for Rs.2,667/- for the same. Unfortunately the opposite party was not written the date on that estimate. The very same bill is produced with the new bill because both the bills are not having date. The complainant several times telephoned to the opposite party for cleaning the aquarium. It is admitted that once the complainant's wife and her sister approached the opposite party for the same. But no abusement was made by the opposite party but only told that they have to get the previous bill from the complainant. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is filed only for avoiding the payment of Rs.5,927/- which is the balance bill amount. So the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled
to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1.
5. The POINT :- Complainant who is a Dental Surgeon in profession, ordered a fish tank/aquarium for fixing in his Clinic. Accepting the order, opposite parties 1 and 2 who are the father and son respectively, constructed the same and fitted in complainant's Clinic. Before fixing the same, at the time of unloading the fish tank from a maruthi van, in front of the clinic, a crack was occurred in the bottom side of the glass portion, when it kept on the floor. The opposite parties told that it can be repaired with glue and was made clear by using the glass glue. The complainant paid Rs.15,927/- as per estimate given by the opposite parties, which is Ext.P1. That was on August 2006. After 4 months the tank started leaking and it was informed to the opposite parties. The opposite parties again came and repaired the same with foreign made glue and another bill was given for Rs.2,667/- which is Ext.P2. Again in October 2007, the fish tank became defective due to leaking of water through the crack. The opposite parties are not ready for replacing the same. As per PW2, the Driver cum Receptionist of PW1 supported PW1, stated that he was also present at the time of unloading the tank, the crack was caused at the time of unloading. Ist opposite party was examined as DW1, he deposed that, no such crack was occurred on the fish tank. When Ext.P1 estimate was given to the doctor, PW1 told to opposite parties that it was a hike bill and only Rs.10,000/- was disbursed to DW1, balance Rs.5,927/- was not given. So in order to avoid from paying the same, a story of crack is narrated. Ext.P2 is the estimate given to the complainant by opposite party long before, for repairing his old fish tank/aquarium and not for the disputed one. As per PW1, he again contacted the opposite parties after paying the bill, for the repair of this fish tank through his wife. But they reacted rashly to his wife. It is also admitted by DW1. If the entire bill is not paid, and about 6000/- rupees is due to the opposite party, an ordinary prudent man will not send his wife to there. As per DW1, in order to avoid from paying the bill, a fabricated story is created by the complainant and sent his wife to opposite parties' residence for repairing of the fish tank. It cannot believable. As per PW1, the fish tank is now also defective because of the crack, they are also ready to apply for a commissioner for inspecting the same. So we think there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1. There is no enmity is seen between the doctor and the opposite parties so that a crack is made on the glass portion of the fish tank, and the entire burden is claimed against the opposite parties. So we think that the crack is caused due to the mishandling of the opposite parties. It was repaired twice and still the defect is not cured. So it is fit to give back the money to the complainant after taking the defective fish tank. As per both parties, 2nd opposite party and complainant are familiar to each other for last 6 years. The complainant several times called 2nd opposite party for cleaning his fish tank before this dispute. The complainant regularly paid charges for the same. So we think that there was a fish tank in the Clinic before the disputed one. There is no evidence brought out to show that there is a fish tank in the residence of the complainant. So Ext.P2 may be the estimate issued for the charges for cleaning the old one, since there no date is written on it. Also it is written in Ext.P2, as fitting charges. If the defective tank is cured by the opposite party, there should not be any service charge for the same. Such a huge bill is paid by the complainant without any dispute, so Ext.P2 cannot be believable. As per PW1, the opposite party misbehaved and ill-treated the complainant's wife with obscene words when she went to the office of the opposite party. It made mental agony to the complainant and his wife. We think it is fit to give back the money paid by the complainant as per Ext.P1 by the opposite party. Rs.2,000/-is ordered to give as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant.
As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give back Rs.15,927/- to the complainant which was paid by the complainant as cost of the fish tank and take back the defective fish tank. The opposite parties are also directed to give Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition, within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2008
