IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 21/2013 (Filed on 21.02.2013)
Between:
Shaju. A.,
Indu Bhavan,
Kurampala Village,
Near NSS Medical Mission,
Pandalam – 689 501. … Complainant.
And:
Sri. Binu,
Hindustan Traders,
Variyapuram,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite party.
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant Sri. Shaju, Indu Bhavan, Pandalam has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows: Complainant is working at Parakodu Civil Supplies Office. Opposite party is the proprietor of Hindustan Traders, Pathanamthitta. Complainant entrusted the laying of interlock tiles of his courtyard to the opposite party. He agreed to do the work at the rate of Rs. 64 per sq.ft. Opposite party done the work of 2399 sq. ft and complainant paid Rs. Rs.1,50,000 for that work as full and final payment as agreed between the parties. But due to the poor quality of the tiles and due to the poor workmanship in laying, the tiles trembled and brokened and the colour of the tiles also faded. Though this matter was intimated to the opposite party, there is no positive response from the opposite party.
3. Thereafter one person approached the complainant by saying that he was directed by the opposite party, who demanded Rs. 24 per sq.ft. for rectifying the defects. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and because of this deficiency in service the complainant was put to irreparable injuries and sufferings. So the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for an order directing opposite party for rectifying the defective works done by the opposite party or for getting the additional expenses required for the rectification along with cost of Rs. 2,500 and compensation of Rs. 30,000.
4. Since the notice to the opposite party was returned with endorsement “Refused”, opposite party is declared as exparte.
5. On the basis of the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that opposite party laid interlock tiles at the courtyard of the complainant’s house and collected Rs. 1,50,000 for that work. But due to the poor quality of the interlock tiles and due to the poor workmanship in laying, the tiles trembled and brokened and the colour of the tiles also faded. Though this matter was intimated to the opposite party he didn’t turned up and rectified the defects. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and because of this deficiency in service the complainant was put to irreparable injuries and sufferings. So the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and brought one document which is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the detailed statement of account regarding the works done by the opposite party given to the complainant which was prepared by the opposite party.
9. Since the opposite party is exparte and as we find no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant, this case stands proved as unchallenged. The attitude of opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and he is liable to the complainant for the loss and sufferings and hence this complaint is found allowable.
10. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to rectify the defects in the works done by him at the complainant’s premises within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,500 (Rupees One Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to rectify the said defects at his cost and the complainant is allowed to realize the actual cost of rectification along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,500 (Rupees One Thousand Five hundred only) from the opposite party with 10% interest from the date of completion of the work till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:-
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Shaju. A.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Detailed statement of account
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Shaju. A., Indu Bhavan, Kurampala Village,
Near NSS Medical Mission, Pandalam – 689 501.
(2) Sri. Binu, Hindustan Traders, Variyapuram,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
