DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 18.03.2024.
CC/97/2024
Abdul Sathar, S/o.Mohammed Haneefa, - Complainant
Kanuvay, Somapalayam,
Namitha Garden, 5/502,
Coimbatore.
(By Adv.V.R.Sivadasan)
Vs
Ajeesha, Residence at KO Biltech Greens, -Opposite Party
Kadangode, Palakkad-678 013.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 05.05.2023 for undertaking the works like plastering of the ceiling, fixing doors, fixing side rails of the staircase, plumbing, arranging three phone electric connection, bathroom fittings, kitchen, flooring with tiles, fixing wall tiles, car porch, new bedroom over the porch with bath room and balcony etc of his semi finished house for Rs.24,00,000/-. The opposite party also agreed to obtain the required approval from Panchayath Authority for undertaking the works.
The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to complete the work as per the agreement insipte of the total payment of Rs.25,15,857/- made by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint with the Palakkad Town North Police Station and the authorities called the opposite party to the police station and directed him to complete the work. As the opposite party failed to complete the work inspite of his commitment given to the police authorities, this complaint is filed seeking refund of Rs.19,15,857/- towards the cost of unfinished work, Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in work apart from cost.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice sent to the opposite party was returned undelivered with endorsement ‘No such person’. Hence, notice was issued by way of e-mail which was delivered on 20.05.2024. As the opposite party failed to file version within the statutory period, inspite of receipt of the notice and failed to enter appearance, name of the opposite party was called in open court and was set ex-parte.
3. Since the complainant failed to file proof affidavit, inspite of two opportunities given by this Commission, the case was taken for orders as merit on 12.09.2024.
4. In between, the complainant filed IA.No.519/24 to advance the matter, and IA.No.520/24 for reopening evidence, which was allowed on a cost of Rs.1,000/-
5. The complainant remitted the cost and filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A21 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the agreement executed by the opposite party with the complainant. Ext.A2 to A20 are the records of payments made by the complainant to the opposite party by various modes and Ext.A21 is the receipt issued by Palakkad Town North Police Station for the complaint filed by the complainant.
6. As the opposite party failed to participate in the proceedings, this Commission is expected to examine only whether the complainant has succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the opposite party.
7. The evidence adduced by the complainant is sufficient only to prove that there was an agreement between them, (Ext.A1) and payments were made to the opposite party (Ext.A2 to A20) as mentioned in the complaint. Ext.A21 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint with Palakkad Town North Police Station.
8. None of the evidence marked by the complainant is sufficient to prove any of the pleadings of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Further, no efforts were made by the complainant to ascertain the actual position/value of works undertaken by the opposite party and the amount required to complete the work (as per the agreement) by appointing an Expert Commission. Resultantly, this Commission is not in a position to conclude what is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and on what basis the compensation is sought.
9. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as the complainant failed to prove a prima facie case against the opposite party.
Pronounced in open court on this the 8th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Agreement between the complainant and the opposite party dated 05.05.2023.
Ext.A2: G pay receipt Rs.67,000/- dated 13.05.2023.
Ext.A3: RTGS Receipt Rs.2,00,000/- dated 17.05.2023.
Ext.A4: G Pay Receipt Rs.99,000/- dated 20.05.2023.
Ext.A5: G Pay Receipt Rs.98,000/- dated 02.06.2023.
Ext.A6: G Pay Receipt Rs.99,000/- dated 09.06.2023.
Ext.A7: G Pay Receipt Rs.50,000/- dated 17.06.2023.
Ext.A8: G Pay Receipt Rs.99,000/- dated 22.06.2023.
Ext.A9: G Pay Receipt Rs.95,000/- dated 05.08.2023.
Ext.A10: G Pay Receipt Rs.55,000/- dated 15.08.2023.
Ext.A11: G Pay Receipt Rs.13,714/- dated 01.09.2023.
Ext.A12: Payment to Subh Laxmi Electricals and Pipe Fittings for Rs.76,000/- dated 21.09.2023.
Ext.A13: Payment to Arun Sanitarywares Rs.43,175/- dated 06.07.2023.
Ext.A14: Payment to AR Steels Rs.41,059/- dated 15.09.2023.
Ext.A15: Payment to AR Steels Rs.19,500/- dated 17.09.2023
Ext.A16: Payment to Supreme Wires Rs.600/- dated 02.09.2023.
Ext.A17: Payment made to Babu, Tarpai Rs.150/-, concrete Machine Rs.11,500/-, Sad Metal Rs.19,000/- dated 17.09.2023.
Ext.A18: Payment to Electric and Pipe Fittings Rs.1,885/- dated 01.09.2023.
Ext.A19: Payment to Pipe and Box Rs.263/- dated 09.09.2023.
Ext.A20: Payment to Electric Fitting Rs.4,404/-.
Ext.A21: Receipt issued to Abdul Sathar dated 19.09.2023.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
