DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.No.117/2009

Ramakrishnan,

S/o.Late P.Sankaran Nair,

'Lakshmikrishna',

Keerthinagar,

Thottakkara,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.R.Manikandan)

Vs

Gopidasan,

S/o.Kunjamma Ammal,

Chekoth House,

Thiruvazhiyode.P.O,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The complainant had availed the service of the opposite party to repair the well in his property. The opposite party agreed to erect concrete rings in the well belongs to the complainant. The opposite party inspected the well and informed that 14 rings to be erected inside the well and the rate for the erection was Rs.15,400/-. The complainant entrusted the work with opposite party on 26/01/2009 for Rs.15,400/-. The complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque dt.27/01/2009 and Rs.1,500/- as per the cheque dt.31/01/09 to the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party started the work of moulding the rings at the premises of the complainant. The opposite party started inserting the rings in the well on

16/02/2009 and on that day he demanded some more amount. The complainant paid Rs.1,800/- in cash to the opposite party on 16/02/2009. The opposite party had inserted 8 rings in the well on 16/02/2009 and 17/02/2009. But the opposite party did not fix the rings properly. So the rings inserted slipped towards one side and it fell into the well. Complainant submits that the opposite party ought to have made proper seating of the first ring and thereafter erected the other rings and also made proper mud filling along with the erection of the ring. The opposite party stopped the work due to the failure of the erection work. The complainant requested the opposite party to rectify the defect but he did not do the same. Then the complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party and the opposite party sent a reply notice stating false contentions. The acts of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service. The mud fallen due to the defective work has to be removed and the complainant has to get the work completed with another worker for which an amount of Rs.9,000/- is necessary. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.9,000/- being the amount necessary for removing the mud and completing the work, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party admitted the oral agreement to insert ring in the complainant's well. The opposite party stated the well was not being used for a long time and the complainant made him believe that it is having a depth of 17-18 kole and there is no rock underneath. The well was filled with soil and other waste upto 8 kole under

these circumstances opposite party was acting solely on the basis of the oral information given by the complainant. The opposite party stated that complainant has agreed to pay labour charges in addition to food for the workers. The opposite party admitted that he has made 14 rings and out of which 8 rings were inserted. While removing the soil the rings slipped down and settled on the sloppy rock. At this stage the complainant become violent and asked the opposite party to vacate the place. In this situation, the opposite party stopped the work. Thereafter a mediation was conducted and the complainant agreed to pay Rs.6,000/- for completing the work. But when the opposite party went to the site the complainant did not allow him to complete the work. The opposite party stated that the existence of rock in the well was unknown to him. The opposite party admitted the payment of Rs.10,000/- by cheque. Further payment was denied by the opposite party. The opposite party stated that there is no defect for the rings and no defect in the service rendered. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party filed affidavit and no documents produced. Complainant filed questionnaire but the opposite party did not file answers to the same.

Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost.

Issues 1 & 2:

We perused relevant documents on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party to repair the well in his

property. The opposite party admitted that he received Rs.10,000/- by cheque. As per Ext.A3 the account details of complainant in Canara Bank, Srikrishnapuram Branch shows that on 27/01/2009 cheque No.574512 withdrawn Rs.10,000/- in the name of Gopidasan and on 31/01/2009 cheque No.574513 withdrawn Rs.1,500/- in the name of Gopidasan. As per Ext.A4 in the pass book of Srikrishnapuram Service Co-operative Bank on 16/02/2009 the complainant withdrawn Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party has not raised any objection in marking of this document. According to Ext.A3 the address of the complainant is different. But the opposite party has admitted the payment of Rs.10,000/- on 27/01/2009 and not raised objection in marking Ext.A3. The complainant has stated that the opposite party has received Rs.13,300/- (10,000 + 1,500 + 1,800). The payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,500/- stated in Ext.A3. Further the complainant stated that on 16/02/2009 he withdrawn Rs.2,000/- from the Co-operative Bank and gave Rs.1,800/- to the opposite party. As per Ext.A4 the pass book shows that the complainant withdraw Rs.2,000/- on 16/02/2009. The opposite party has not raised objection in marking this document. So we cannot disbelieve the words of the complainant. The opposite party admitted that he has received only Rs.10,000/-. In this case the opposite party stated that he has made 14 rings and out of which 8 rings were inserted in the well. Further the opposite party stated that there is no defect for the rings. No evidence was produced by the complainant in support of the allegation of defects in the rings. But

the opposite party has failed to repair the well. Complainant stated that Rs.9,000/- is required for completion of the work but no estimate or evidence was produced in support of this claim. In view of the above findings we are of the view that complainant is entitled for some compensation in respect of repairing the well.

In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within

one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of July, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Date of filing: 07/08/2009

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Reply letter sent by opposite party to complainant

Ext.A2 – Lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of complainant's passbook

Ext.A4 - Photocopy of complainant's passbook with Service Co-operative Bank

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings