IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 180/2012 (Filed on 16.11.2012)
Between:
1. K.M. Thomas,
Kulangara Puthuparampil House,
Nannuvakkad (N),
Pathanamthitta.
2. Thomas Mathew,
Kulangara Puthuparampil House,
Of --do-- --do-- … Complainants.
And:
Angel Enterprises,
Tharaseryil Building,
Near YMCA, Thiruvalla. … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The second complainant is the son of the first complainant and they are permanently residing in house No.51 situated at Nannuvakkad, Pathanamthitta. Their building is a concrete building having concrete terrace. During rainy season, there is leakage from the terrace of their building and they planned to make certain repairs for stopping the leakage. While so, they saw an advertisement of the opposite party in a Malayalam daily stating that the opposite party is an expert in stopping the water leakage of concrete buildings. Accordingly, the complainants approached the opposite party for availing his services for rectifying the leakage of the complainants’ house and the opposite party inspected the leakage of the complainants’ house on 15.02.2012 and assured to rectify the leakage by applying certain chemicals and other materials at the rate of ` 250 per sq. feet. The complainants agreed the same and the opposite party and his workers carried out the works in 800 sq.feet and collected ` 20,000 from the complainants and also issued a guarantee letter for 5 years assuring that any complaints to the works will be rectified by the opposite party free of cost if anything happened to the works within 5 years. After 2 days from the completion of the works, there was a rainfall and the previous leakage was seen again. This was intimated to the opposite party and they came and done certain repairs to the works already done by them. Thereafter also the same leakage was seen again due to rainfall. So the complainants contacted the opposite party through telephone. But there was no response from the opposite party or he did not come to the house of the complainants. The above said act of the opposite party is against the assurance and the guarantee given by him which is a clear deficiency in service which put the complainants to financial loss and mental agony. So the opposite party is liable to the complainants for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 20,000 with 12% interest per annum along with compensation of ` 30,000 and cost of ` 5,000 from the opposite party.
3. In this case, opposite party is exparte.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainants, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, second complainant was heard.
6. The Point: The complainants’ allegation is that the opposite party had done certain works for stopping the water leakages of their building and he had collected an amount of ` 20,000 from the complainant. The opposite party also assured 5 years guarantee for the works done by him. But due to the defective works of the opposite party, the leakage problem was not solved and it is continuing and the opposite party is not prepare to rectify the leakage in spite of his guarantee and hence opposite party is liable to the complainants for his deficiency in service.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the second complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 3 documents. The said three documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A3 through PW1. Ext. A1 is the paper cutting in respect of the opposite party’s advertisement published in Malayala Manorama daily. Ext. A2 is the receipt No. 1103 dated 15.02.2012 for ` 20,000 issued by the opposite party in the name of the first complainant. Ext. A3 is the guarantee letter dated 15.02.2012 issued by the opposite party in the name of the first complainant.
8. On a perusal of Exts. A1 to A3, it is seen that the opposite party claims to be an expert in this field and he had carried out certain works for stopping the leakage of the complainants’ building and he had collected ` 20,000 from the complainants and he had given a guarantee letter assuring guarantee for 5 years to the works done by him. The complainants’ case is that the works done by the opposite party was defective and the water leakage is continuing even after the works of the opposite party and the opposite party had willfully evaded to rectify the defects of his work as against the guarantee given by him. Since the opposite party is exparte, and on the basis of the evidence given by the complainants, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainants. Thus, the complainants’ case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to the complainants and hence this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return ` 20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand only) collected by him as per Ext. A2 receipt along with compensation of ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realize the whole amount with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of December, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : Thomas Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Paper cutting in respect of the opposite party’s
advertisement published in Malayala Manorama daily.
A2 : Receipt No. 1103 dated 15.02.2012 for ` 20,000 issued
by the opposite party in the name of the first
complainant.
A3 : Guarantee letter dated 15.02.2012 issued by the opposite
party in the name of the first complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) K.M. Thomas, Kulangara Puthuparampil House,
Nannuvakkad (N), Pathanamthitta.
(2) Angel Enterprises, Tharaseryil Building,
Near YMCA, Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
