Date of filing : 05-06-2012
Date of order : 26-06-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.192/2012
Dated this, the 26th day of June 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Sheik Usman, S/o. Sheik Ahamad Saheb, : Complainant
Rtd. Driver, DSO Office, R/at Thayalangadi,
Kasaragod.Po, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.B.Ramakrishna Bhat, Kasaragod)
C.V.Chandran, Proprietor, : Opposite party
Koran Engineering Works,
SD Road, Nellikunje, Kasaragod.Po
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.T.V.Sathyendran, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The nutshell of the case of Sri.Sheik Usman is that he is a retired Driver of District Supply Office and a senior citizen he had constructed an RCC house in 2005 investing his entire retirement benefits. In order to protect the windows from sun and rain complainant approached opposite party for a quotation for construction of sun shade. Opposite party inspected the site and orally agreed the work for Rs.3,000/-. Opposite party completed the work in the month of April 2012 and has given a bill for Rs.6,582/- dt.23-04-2012 which is excessive, unreasonable and exorbitant is the case of the complainant. Initially complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4000/- as advance and after the work he paid the balance of Rs.2,582/- under protest. The work done by opposite party was highly defective, incomplete and was in a most negligent manner. The pent roof fitted above the sun shade by opposite party is totally obstructing the opening of the windows and the materials used are of low quality. Complainant approached opposite party on several occasions to rectify the defects. But opposite party began to ridicule the complainant. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite party admits that, work is entrusted by the complainant, but according to opposite party it is only a labour work, which is personal contract and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party done the work in the site of the complainant with the materials purchased along with the complainant and it is of high quality. Opposite party denies that he had given quotation for Rs.3,000/- for the said work. According to opposite party complainant paid the entire amount only after satisfying the work, the work is fixed not by quotation. Moreover, if the complainant is not satisfied with the work of opposite party, he is ready to remove the sunshade fitted with the cost of opposite party and ready to pay back the amount paid by the complainant.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Exts A1 to A4 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel of opposite party.
4. A Commissioner was deputed to report about the nature and quality of the work done by opposite party. The commissioner filed the report Ext.C1. Both sides were heard and the documents perused carefully.
5. The question raised for consideration are:
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2 If so what is the relief?
6. Issue No.1. The specific case of the complainant is that he has orally entrusted the construction work of sunshade to opposite party for a quotation of Rs.3,000/-. But after the completion of work opposite party given an excessive bill of Rs.6,582/-. Moreover, the work done by opposite party is highly defective, incomplete and is in a most negligent manner. The pent roof fitted above the sunshade by opposite party is totally obstructing the opening of the windows. The materials used are of low quality. Opposite party in his version states that “If the complainant is not satisfied with the work of opposite party, he is ready to remove the sunshade fitted at the instruction of the complainant with the cost of opposite party and ready to pay back the amount paid by the complainant. This is in the nature of an admission that after fitting sunshade, opposite party felt that the work done by him is not only useful to the complainant, but it is harmful also. (Sunshade fitted by opposite party prevents the complainant from opening the windows and thereby obstructs the entrance of fresh air to the room. Ext.C1 Expert Commission report states that all the windows openings are provided with RCC sunshade having a width of about 35 cm instead of actual requirement of 60 cm. In order to avoid passage of rain water inside the window, an additional width of 35 cm was provided by means “of MS Angle frame work using 25x25x6mm section with bolt 10mmq over land with tin sheet of 21gange by means of J bolt but between washer was not seen in that. And at the same time PVC/GI gutter of size 15cm was also not seen provided at the edge of the sunshade to drain off rain water properly. The sheet work so done was just below the sunshade which obstructs the opening of the window shutter and results insufficient air passage and lightning inside the room.” Ext.C1 report clearly states that the work done by opposite party is incomplete and defective. Besides that opposite party has given an excessive bill also. Complainant was constrained to give the excess amount under protest. The negligent act of opposite party caused heavy loss and mental agony to the complainant. Complainant sent a lawyer notice calling upon opposite party to rectify the mistake and to install pent roof within a week of receipt of this notice but opposite party sent an evasive reply i.e. Ext.A3. If opposite party rectify the defect at that stage, this complaint would not have arise. Complainant in his affidavit states that the house is constructed investing his hard earned retirement benefits. But the house became inconvenient due to the negligent construction made by opposite party. Opposite party in his version expressed his willingness to remove the existing sun shade with the cost of opposite party and ready to pay back the amount paid by the complainant but the removal of sunshade may harm/the entire building. The complainant is a senior citizen, who had spent his entire retirement benefit for this house. Yet the house is inconvenient due to the negligent construction made by opposite party rectifying that defect is highly necessary. Now the price of materials and labour charges are considerably increased three times than the earlier construction. It is clear from Ext.A2 notice and the circumstances of the case that complainant suffered loss and mental agony, which opposite party is bound to compensate. We accept Ext.C1 commission report, which disclose out the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
7. Issue No.2:- Regarding quantum, it is very difficult to assess the loss and agony suffered by the complainant due to the illegal act of opposite party.
Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant i.e. Rs.3,582/- and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for rectifying the defects and Rs.10000/- as damages Rs.3000/- cost within 30 days from the date of receipt copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.23-04-2012 Receipt issued by Opposite party
A2. 19-05-2012 Copy of lawyer notice
A3. 25-05-2012 Reply notice
A4.25-05-2012 Quotation
C1. Commission report.
PW1. K.Sheik Usman
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
pj Forwarded by Order
