D.o.F:13/3/12

D.o.O:16/11/12

 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                       CC.No.63 /2012

                        Dated this, the 16th  day of November 2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT.RAMADEVI.P                       : MEMBER   

SMT.BEENA.K.G                               : MEMBER

Abdulkhader,

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 A3 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 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.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext.A3 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 - invoice cum warranty certificate

A2 - copy of lawyer notice

A3 – acknowledgment

  MEMBER                                                   MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

eva