D.o.F:13/3/12
D.o.O:16/11/12
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.64 /2012
Dated this, the 16th day of November 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Moideen,
S/o Late Saifuddeen Kolikkare,
Kolikkare House, Fort Road,Kasaragod. : Complainant
(Adv.Benny Jose,Kasaragod)
Bindhu Rajeev,
Lakshmi Nivas, Bhagath Singh Road, : Opposite Party
Petta Po, Trivandrum-24.
(Adv. Padmanabhan,Hosdurg)
ORDER
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
That the opposite party is engaged in the field of leak proofing work of the building and the name of his concern is KANSOFT and he is having branch office at Anagoor Kasaragod. The house of the complainant was having leaking problem and the opposite party approached complainant during the month of April 2011 and assured him that the opposite party will do the leak proofing work of his house with utmost guarantee and also offered 5 years warranty for the works. The opposite party also given an assurance that the life of the water proofing coating will be up to 15 years. On believing the words of the opposite party the deal was fixed and the work was done by the opposite party and the opposite party collected `19887/- from the complainant. But in July 2011 when the rain started the leakage of the home became more worse than earlier and the complainant intimated this fact to opposite party and he assured that he will solve the problem. But irrespective of repeated requests by the complainant the opposite party did not turned up. Then the complainant sent a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party calling upon him to solve the leakage problems and to pay `10,000/- as compensation. Eventhough he received the lawyer notice the opposite party neither sent any reply nor complied the demands in the notice. Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
2. On admitting the complaint on file the Forum issued notice to the opposite party . The opposite party duly served the notice and Adv. Padmanabhan filed vakalath. The case was posted for several time for settlement or for version. But the opposite party has not turned up. No version filed.
3. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A4 marked.
4. After going through the facts of the case and on perusing the documents the only question to be answered is whether the opposite party failed to give service during the warranty period. Ext.A1 is the quotation statement. Ext.A2 is the invoice cum warranty certificate issued by the opposite party which shows the payment made by the complainant and specified the term of warranty as 5 years. Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment of the same. Eventhough the opposite party received the lawyer notice he even not ready to reply to the same. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the opposite party failed to provide services during warranty period. Moreover, there is no contra evidence on the part of opposite party to disprove the contention of complainant. Here the leakage of the house occurred after two months of its repair. Hence the complainant is entitled to receive the amount as spent by him for the leak proofing work.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay `19887/- to complainant and further directed to pay ` 2000/- towards compensation for mental agony and ` 2000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Exts:
A1 – quotation statement.
A2- invoice cum warranty certificate
A3 - copy of lawyer notice
A4 – acknowledgment
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva