DOF.27.03.2010
DOO.20.07.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member
Dated this, the 20th day of July 2012
C.C.No.96/2010
T.O.Mohanan,
“Pranamam”
Kannothumchal, Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran) Complainant
Hareesh,
Chandroth House,
Ambilad,
Kuthuparamba. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sm.K.P.Preethakumari, Member
This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `1,00, 000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had contacted him during the construction of his house by saying that he will be supplied the handrails of Balcony and stair case for an amount of `36,000 with standard and good quality materials. Since the complainant had decided his house warming on April 11th, he placed an order for the same to the opposite party and given `20, 000 as advance. On 9th April itself the opposite party had completed the work of handrails of balcony and staircase and the complainant handed over `16, 000 also to the opposite party. During the time of work of handrails the opposite party further promised the complaint that he will supply the gate for an amount of `20, 000 and hence the complainant had given `10, 000 as advance. At the time of placing the order, the opposite party promised to the complainant that he will supply the gate within 3 weeks. But the gate was supplied only after 4 months from the date of order and the complainant had given the balance amount of `10,000 to the opposite party. At the time when the complainant opened the gate after fixing it, it is seen that both gates are in a slanting position towards one side. But this was not due to any defect of fixation of the gate. But after keen examination it was realized that this was due to the manufacturing defect of the gate. This was caused because of the difference in the length of lever through which the gate was fitted to the concrete pillar. It has a length of 1 ½ inches on the upper part and 3 inches on the lower part. So the complainant had contacted the opposite party several times and after several request the opposite party examined the gate. The steel globe fixed on the pillar of the handrails was also broken down. More over the handrails in the balcony also damaged due to rust. One of the glasses fitted on the handrails of the stair case was also in the broken state even at the time of its construction. The locks and other accessories used in the gate also were comparatively small. Even though the opposite party had promised the complainant that all these defects will be cured before 30.11.08, but even today he has not rectified the defects. The complainant had contacted him for several times to rectify the defects but all are in vain. So the only way left behind the complainant is to replace the gate after demolishing the pillar and reconstructing the pillars, and to replace the handrails of balcony, and to do other rectification work. For doing the work, the complainant has to spend
` 60,000. All these were caused due to the deficient work of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
The case was once decided as exparty. Later on the opposite party went in appeal and remanded the case back for disposal after hearing opposite party. After remanding the opposite party has filed his version denying the contention of the complainant that he had entrusted the works of handrails and gate to the opposite party. The opposite party has not known the complainant and has no direct relation with the complainant. The complainant has never entrusted the work to opposite party. The opposite party has never promised to do the work for `31,000. The version that the complainant has entrusted this much of amount without any receipt or agreement is unbelievable and is an utter false. The opposite party is a resident of Kuthuparamba and has done stainless steel fabrication work for a while and opposite party has worked along with one Mr.Shaji, a Civil Engineer and according to opposite party this Shaji is the contractor and Engineer of the complainant’s house. The opposite party has done the stainless steel welding work of the stair case of the complainant’s house as per the instruction of the above said Shaji. All the necessary materials are supplied by the complainant and the opposite arty has done the work as a coolie. The opposite arty has no knowledge about the averment that the work of the gate of opposite party is also entrusted to opposite party. This opposite party has not used to done the welding work of Iron and has no knowledge about the same. This opposite party has never accepted even a single penny directly from the complainant. The opposite party has received his coolie from the above said Shaji. The opposite party has one among the coolies who have done the work for engineer Shaji. So the opposite party has in no way connected with the subject mater of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite
party?
2. Wheher the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1,PW2, PW3 and DW1 and Ext.C1.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
The complainant’s case is that the work of the gate of the house of the complainant done by opposite party is imperfect and hence the gate could not be closed and as a simple push it always opened. In order to prove this the complainant examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ext.C1. In order to disprove the case the opposite party examined DW1. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainant that the opposite party has done the work of the gate. According to opposite party he has worked as a collie under PW3 Shaji who was the contractor of this work and the above said Shaji gave him remuneration. But the complaint has not produced any document to show that he has entrusted the work to the opposite party and had given the amount to opposite party directly. Since the opposite party has denied the work burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove his case. The complainant was examined PW3 who is admittedly given advice to complainant with respect to the construction of his house. But this witness has stated nothing to connect the opposite party and the complainant. He deposed that “]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ hoSnsâ ]Wn-sb-Sp-¡p¶ Øe¯v t]mbn-cp-¶p. t]mb-t¸mÄ gate sâ]Wn \S-¡p-¶-Xmbn Ip. OP bmbn-cp¶p {]hÀ¯n-sb-Sp¯Xv”. He further deposed that “Rm³ Hcp-Zn-h-kT ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ ho«n t]mb-t¸mÄ ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ gatesâ {]hÀ¯n OP sN¿p-¶Xp In-cp¶p”. But these words substantiate the case of opposite party that he has done the work of the complainant as a collie. Nothing was brought out by the complainant to substantiate his case. So we are of the opinion that the complainant failed miserably to substantiate his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and passed orders accordingly.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant: Nil
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits for the court
C1. Commission report.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
PW2.P.K.Raghunathan
PW3.ShajeeE.V
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1.Hareesh .K
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
