CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 09/01/2012
CC .No/10/2012
Ramachandran,
Aged 67 years,
S/o. N.K. Nedungadi,
Santha Sadan House, Ariyur. P.O, - Complainant
Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad District.
(By Adv.Dhananjayan)
Vs
Anil Kumar,
S/o. Velayudhan,
Sincere Engineering, Kottappuram P.O,
Sreekrishnapuram , Ottapalam TaluK. - Opposite party
(S/o. Velayudhan, Aneesh Nivas, Perimbadari P.O,
Mannarkkad)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Facts of the Complaint in brief:
Complainant entrusted the roofing work of his tiled house with the opposite party. The nature of the work was to remove the wooden reepers of the roof and install ¾ x 1 ½ hollow GI pipes instead of wooden reepers. Expenses agreed to be paid was Rs. 48,000/- for the purchase of GI pipes, Rs. 21,000/- labour , Rs. 3000/- miscellaneous expenses. Rs. 25,000/- was paid by cheque on 11/01/11. After that Rs. 25,000/- was paid on demand. Thereafter opposite party dumped some GI Pipes and removed the tiles and reepers from the roof of the house, there by performing half of the agreed work. At the time of heavy rain, the roof was kept open. Even though requested several times, opposite party failed to complete the work. Complainant and his wife is living alone in the house. Many of the tiles were damaged due to the inexperience of the opposite party's workers. Out of the total amount of Rs. 50,000/- opposite party spent Rs. 15,000/- for purchase of GI pipes, Rs. 5000/- for labour. So according to the complainant opposite party has to return Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant. Further opposite party destroyed tiles worth Rs. 25,000/- . Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a total amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the opposite party.
Opposite party admitted that the complainant entrusted the work with the opposite party. Opposite party has given a rough estimate for the work which amounts to Rs. 72,000/- . Complainant has given Rs. 50,000/- vide 2 cheques. Opposite party purchased GI pipes worth Rs. 48,000/- and delivered at the residence of the complainant. Further purchased materials like nails, screws, paint and other accessories worth Rs. 3000/- and incurred transportation charges of Rs. 5000/- . Thus opposite party incurred an expense of Rs. 51,000/- for materials and transportation alone. Opposite party completed the work of Poomukham and kitchen as promised and when the labour charge of Rs. 14,000/- was demanded, complainant gave only Rs. 8,000/- and said that entire balance amount will be paid after completion of the whole work. Opposite party is an ordinary business man who could not do the work without receipt of money. Hence he had no other option but to stop the work. Then opposite party demanded the balance charges, complainant abused him. Now also opposite party is ready to complete the work provided the complainant pays the balance amount. Hence there is neither any deficiency in service nor any defect in the workmanship of the opposite party.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits, Ext. A1 to A3 and Ext. B1 to B3.
Issues that arise for consideration are
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
If so what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issues 1 & 2
Entrustment of work of roofing with the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs. 72,000/- is admitted by both parties. Payment of Rs 50,000/- is also an admitted fact. Further Payment of Rs. 8,000/- towards labour is acknowledged by opposite party.
The grievence of the complainant is with respect to abandonment of work by opposite party and also with respect to non tallying of the work completed and expenses incurred on the one hand and payment received on the other hand. According to the complainant opposite party has spent Rs. 15,000/- for purchase of GI pipes and Rs. 5,000/- for labour. Hence out of Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 30,000/- has to be refunded to the complainant. The stand of opposite party is that Rs. 48,000/- was incurred for the purchase of GI pipes, Rs. 3,000/- for accessories and Rs. 5,000/- transportation charges. In total Rs. 51,000/- was incurred for materials and transportation alone. Further opposite party completed the work of Poomukham and kitchen for which labour charge comes to Rs. 14,000/- out of which Rs 8,000/- only was paid by the complainant. Ext. B1 to B3 bills were produced by the opposite party to prove purchase of GI pipes worth Rs. 48,000/. Even though the said bills is not a convincing evidence to establish that the purchase made is for the complainant above, it has to be looked in to that there is no contrary evidence forthcoming from the part of the complainant regarding the said aspect. Even though commission application was allowed, complainant not pressed the petition. Had there been a commission report, the forum can easily assess the veracity of the complaint. Further allegation regarding the loss due to the breakage of the tiles etc also is not supported by any evidence. Even though a witness list was filed complainant failed to examine the witness.
On the whole we find that rather than mere pleadings there is absolutely no evidence on the part of the complainant to prove their case.
In the result, complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of November, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of the lawyer notice to the opposite party with acknowledgement receipt.
Ext.A2 – Reply notice to the complainant.
Ext. A3 – Receipt for Rs. 25,000/- given by Anilkumar.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Original bill issued by Faba agencies, Kochi to this opposite party dtd. 10.01.2011.
Ext. B2- Original bill issued by Faba agencies, Kochi to this opposite party dtd. 25.01.2011.
Ext. B3- Original bill issued by Faba agencies, Kochi to this opposite party dtd. 29.03.2011.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
No cost allowed
