CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

CC No.224/10

Friday, the 29th day of October, 2010

Petitioner                                              :  Cyriac Thomas,

                                                               Mecherikunnel House,

                                                               Vempally Kara, Kanakkary village,

                                                               Kottayam.

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     :  Aby Mathew,

                                                               Proprietor,

                                                               Angel Enterprises, Parassery building,

                                                               Thiruvalla PO, Pathanamthitta.

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

            By seeing the advertisement of the opposite party in Malayala Manorama News Paper, regarding the quality of his leak proofing compound and prompt service, the complainant telephonically enquired about the leak proofing compound on 15/05/08 as the roof of his first floor concrete residential building had minor water seepage in rainy season.  The opposite party came to the complainant on 16/05/08 itself, inspected the roof and then applied the leak proofing compound very hurriedly and collected Rs. 15375/- as charges vide bill no.172/08 guaranteeing the leak proofing till 15/05/2018.  After the said work, on 19/05/08, there was rain and the earlier seepage of water persisted.  It was informed to the opposite party.  Even though the opposite party assured immediate  rectification work, nothing was done.  Thereafter the complainant

issued registered notice to the opposite party on 21-01-09 demanding return of money collected by the opposite party with cost and charges for his improper work.  On receipt of the notice on 25-01-09 the opposite party applied some more paste like compound on the surface of the concrete roof and made the complainant believe that he has rectified the leak permanently.  But during the rainy season in 2009 the leak worsened.  Though the matter was intimated to the opposite party he refused to take any further corrective measures to check the water leak and he closed down his establishment at Kottayam and shifted to Thiruvalla.  The complainant then covered the concrete roof with aluminium sheets at a cost of Rs.8000/- to prevent the water leak.  The complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claimed the return of Rs.15375/- with 18% interest and compensation Rs.90,000/-.

            Notice was served to the opposite party.  But opposite party was called absent hence set  expartee.

Points for considerations are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party

ii)                   Reliefs and costs

Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and exhibits A1 to A6.

Point No.1

            Heard the complainant and perused the documents.  The complainant produced the copy of bill dtd 16/05/08 for Rs.15,375/- and it is marked as exhibit A1.  As per ext A1, the said leak proofing work was guaranteed for 10 years.  The office copy of the first advocate’s notice issued

to the opposite party dtd 21-01-09 and copy of its postal receipts were produced and were marked as ext A2 and A3 respectively. The complainant deposed that even after the issuance of the ext A2 advocate’s notice the alleged complaints were not satisfactorily rectified.  He further deposed that a second lawyer’s notice was also issued to the opposite party demanding the refund of the money collected by the opposite party for the said leak proofing work.  The office copy of the aforesaid advocate’s notice dtd 17/06/10, postal receipt copy and acknowledgement copy were also produced and were marked as Exts.A4,A5&A6respectively.  The complainant next deposed that the leakage of the roof persisted evenafter the leak proofing done by the opposite party.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party had not done anything to rectify the alleged defective work done by him.  As the opposite party chose not to contest the allegations levelled against the opposite party remain unchallenged.

            After receiving Rs.15,375/- the opposite party failed to rectify the leakage of the complainant’s roof.  Considering the facts and circumstances we hold the opposite party deficient in service.  Point no.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

             In view of the findings in point No.1 , the complaint is allowed.

            The opposite party will refund Rs.15,375/- which is collected by them for the disputed leak proofing work along with a compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President  Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of the complainant

Ext.A1-Copy of receipt dtd 16-5-08

Ext.A2-Copy of advocate’s notice dtd 21-01-09

Ext.A3-Copy of postal receipt

Ext.A4-Copy of advocate’s notice dtd 16/06/10

Ext.A5-Copy of postal receipt

Ext.A6-Copy of acknowledgement card

Documents of the opposite party

Nil.

By Order,

S/3cs