CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member CC.No.244/09 Saturday, the day of 30th, January, 2010.
Petitioner. Mohammed Shafi 10/429, Chethipuzha village Industrial Estate P.O. Changanacherry, Kottayam. (Adv.P.S.Navas) Vs. Opposite parties. Anilkumar.C.N. Peditreat Sachivothamapuram.P.O. Kottayam.
O R D E R Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.
The petitioner's case is as follows.
The petitioner's residential building had the problem of water leaking from its concrete roof during rainy season. Attracted by the advertisements of the opposite party, the petitioner entrusted the work of curing the water leaking to the opposite party. The opposite party assured to cure the existing leaking without any default and promised 7 years free charge warranty for the said work. In pursuance of the said promise the said work was entrusted to the opposite party for a total amount of Rs.39,545/-. On 27-5-2009, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the work started on 31-5-2009 and completed on 3-6-2009 at 9.p.m. Thereafter the petitioner gave a cheque dtd. 8/6/09 of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party. Three days after the completion of the said work ie. On 6-6-09 there was heavy rain and there existed the same leaking problems from roof. Hence the petitioner gave stop payment instructions to the bank and the payment of
-2- Rs.10,000/- was stopped. The opposite party again made some repairing works and promised that the defects are cured and there shall be no leaking in future. Believing the said promise the petitioner further issued a cheque dt. 1.10.09 for Rs. 19,548/-. Thereafter occurred continuous and heavy rains and on 25-6-2009 the petitioner found same complaint of leakage and also found certain new leakages. According to the petitioner the work executed by the opposite party is substandard, non trust worthy and non-credible and therefore he is not liable to honour the cheque dt. 1/10/09 for Rs.19,545/-. The petitioner alleged that the opposite party had not done anything to repair the substandard work done by them. Hence the petitioner filed this petition praying refund of Rs.20,000/- with 12% interest, Rs.25,000/- towards the financial loss suffered and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and personal inconvenience. Notice was served to the opposite party and entered appearance. An objection dt. 5/10/09 filed by the opposite party is seen on record but on several postings after 21-11-09 there was no representation from the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. Points for consideration are: (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? (ii) Reliefs and costs?
Point No.1. Heard the petitioner and perused the documents. The warranty card is produced and marked as exhibit A1. As per Ext.A1, the work done by the opposite party is given warranty for 7 years. The quotation given by the opposite party is produced and marked as exhibit A2. On perusal of exhibit A2, it is understood that advance payment of Rs.20,000/- was made by the petitioner. Ext.A2 further proves the receipt of cheque dt.
-3- 1/10/09 for Rs.19,545/-. The photographs of the roof are marked as exhibit A3 series. Ext. A3 shows a wet area in the corner of the roof. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to disprove the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner. So we are constrained to rely upon the evidence placed on record by the petitioner. As per the averment of the petitioner the roof started leaking just 3 days after the leak curing work done by the opposite party. From the petitioner's averments it is seen that he had spent Rs.20,000/- for the said repairing works but the said leak curing works lasted only for three days. In our opinion the opposite party failed to maintain the quality in the said leak curing works Hence we hold the opposite party deficient in service. Poiont No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is allowed. The petition is ordered as follows. The opposite party will refund Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. The opposite party will also pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/-as litigation cost to the petitioner. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy.
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner. Ext.A1 Warranty card dt.27/5/09 Ext.A2 Extention dt. 27/5/07
-4-
Ext.A3series. Photographs Ext.A4 Copy of lawyer's notice Ext.A5 Postal receipt Ext.A6 Reply notice.
Documents of opposite party.
NIL.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/4 copies.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
