Siva Temple Road,

P.O.Taliparamba 670 141.                              Complainant

Biju Antony,

Elamplackal House,

Padepengad P.O.,                                            Opposite party

(Rep. by Adv.M.M.Shajith)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `1,35,500 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant is that opposite party had applied leak proof coating with respect to two residential building of the complainant in Taliparmaba Municipality having No.TMC.11.290 and TMC 11.283 by giving `60,500 and `50,000 respectively and opposite party acknowledged the same as per cash bill Nos. 638 dt.2.4.09 and 641 dt.4.5.09. The opposite party finished the work in respect of first building by name Sindhooram on 27.4.09 and issued warranty certificate dt. 28.4.09 and with respect to the  other building the work was completed on 3.5.09 and issued a certificate of warranty on  4.5.09 and the agreed warranty is for five years from the date of completion. But after the lapse of two year during rainy season the leaf proofing work has become a total failure resulting in heavy leaking and blackening of the ceiling underneath the coating in various places and was visible during rainy season of 2011. In spite of making several demands opposite party was not ready to return the amount received by opposite party. Due to leaking  the complainant was constrained to go  in for aluminum roofing for the entire  terrace in both the building involving  `3,00,000.The coating applied by the opposite party has started peeling out at various places. So the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to opposite party and on receiving notice opposite party requested two months and later on he had issued a reply stating false contention. Due to the act of opposite party the complainant had suffered both mentally and physically and without the intervention of the Forum the grievance of the complainant cannot redressed. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum the opposite party appeared but he has not filed version and during subsequent posting he was absent and hence he was called absent and set exparte.

          The main  points to be decided in this case is whether there is  any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

                    The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A8 and C1 and C2.  The Ext.A1 and A2 are the bills issued by Oasis consultancy, Payyannur, Ext.A3 is lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the reply issued by opposite party as per Ext.A4 reply notice opposite party admits that he had done leak proof coating work to the two houses of the complainant and received `60,500 and `50,000 as consideration.Ext.A6 andA7 are the warranty certificate through which the opposite party had assured 5 years warranty. So the documents undoubtedly prove the case of the complaint that the opposite party had done leak proof coating and received amount. The Commission also reported in her Ext.C1 report that the leak proof coating work was defective and was peeled. But there is no contra evidence before us. More over opposite party has not turned up before the Forum to put forward the pleadings and to prove his contention. So this itself shows the unfair trade practice of opposite party. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and for which he is liable to compensate the complainant by giving back `1,10,500 to the complainant along with `5000 as compensation and cost  and order passed accordingly.    

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return `1,10,500(Rupees One Lakh Ten thousand  and five hundred only) with `5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                              Sd/-                         Sd/-                           

                        President                     Member    

APPENDIX         

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2.Cash bills dt.2.4.09 & 4.5.09 issued by Oasis Associates

A3. Copy of the letter dt.1-0.10.11 sent to OP

A4.Reply notice

A5. Postal AD

A6 & A7. Certificate of warranty issued by OP

A8. Quotation and work order issued by Oasis Associates.

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Exhibits for the court

C1 & C2. Commission report

Witness examined for either side: Nil   /forwarded by order/

                                                                 Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.