BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of December, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.149/2009 Between Complainant : Winson Paul S/o Paul, Varikattu House, Chilavu P.O, Karimannoor Village, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District. (By Advs: M.M.Thomas,K.J.Thomas & Johnson Joseph) And Opposite Party : Aby Mathew S/o Mathew, Proprietor, Bark Enterprises, Sreekrishna Complex, M.L Road, Kottayam.
O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is the owner of a residential building bearing No.I/115 of Alakkode Grama Panchayath. The said building was constructed before 15 years. Since the kitchen, sit out and a room near to the sit out developed to leak during the rainy season. The opposite party is a supplier of electronic goods and is doing the renovation works of the old buildings. The opposite party published an advertisement in the newspaper that they are doing the polyguard leak proofing works for the building. On seeing the advertisement, the complainant contacted the opposite party. The opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and agreed to clear the leaking of the rooms. The opposite party demanded Rs.28/- per Sq.feet for the work. The opposite party told that he would give 10 years guarantee of leak proof. The complainant agreed the demand of the opposite party and gave Rs.10,000/- as advance. On 23.02.2009 the opposite party and his workers came to the house of the complainant and conducted the repairing works in the roof of the rooms which had leaking problems. The opposite party received the balance amount from the complainant and gave a receipt for the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- received from the complainant. After the repairing works, the opposite party told that for the next 10 years there would not occur any leaking in the roof and the complainant believed the words of the opposite party. But in May 2009 when rain started, the rooms started to leak severally than the earlier. Thereupon the complainant contacted the opposite party and he agreed to repair and prevent the leakage. But the opposite party did not care to come to the house of the complainant or to conduct the repairing works. The complainant many times contacted the opposite party but the opposite party was not ready to come and repair the defects. Now during the rainy season the complainant and his family members are not in a position to prepare even food, since the rain water is falling on the stove fixed. So the petition is filed for deficiency in service of the opposite party and to get the amount paid by the complainant and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
2. The opposite party did not appear or file any written version. So he was called exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. Evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- Complainant's residence building caused leakage of water during rainy season. The opposite party repaired the house by using poly guard leak proofing material and a guarantee of 10 years was given. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- for the same. But the building started increase leaking in the next rainy season. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 is residing in House No.1/115 of Alakkode Grama Panchayath. PW1 was attracted with the advertisement given by the opposite party in Malayalam Daily, stating that they would do the poly guard leak proofing works for the buildings. PW1 contacted opposite party and started work on 23.2.2009. Rs.28/sq. Feet was demanded by the opposite party for curing the leakage of water in the building of PW1. The opposite party received Rs.20,000/- for the work and the receipt for the same is Ext.P1. A guarantee of 10 years was given, and it was duly written in the receipt. Unfortunately in the month of May 2009, when rain started the rooms started to leak severally than earlier. When PW1 contacted the opposite party, opposite party agreed to repair the same. But the opposite party never turned up and even not ready to attend the telephone calls of PW1. PW1 spent another 80,000/- rupees for repairing the roof. PW1 suffered a lot and severe mental agony caused to the complainant due to the act of the opposite party. So it is clear from Ext.P1 that the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party for the work done by them. A guarantee of 10 years is also written in the Ext. P1 bill. Complainant spent another 80,000/- rupees for the repair of the building and caused miseries and inconvenience . It is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite party to avoid the complainant from curing the defects of the works done by him.
As per Ext. P1, the opposite party repaired about 840 square feet of the house. So we think that it is not believable that the complainant spent Rs.80,000/- for the repairs of the same, because of the defect of the work of the opposite party. If the work was not done by the opposite party, the complainant might to have spent the same for the repair. So the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party should be repaid. PW1 suffered mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite party. It may be true and Rs.5,000/- can be charged for the same.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to repay Rs.20,000/-, amount paid by the complainant for the repair of his house as per Ext. P1 with 12% interest from the date of payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him. Also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2009
Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Winson.P.Varikattu On the side of Opposite Party : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of Bill dated 23.02.2009 for Rs.20,000/- On the side of Opposite Party : Nil
| 
