<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2100/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.A.Prasanna Kumar,M/s. Asha Bhavani Enterprises (R)C/o Sri R.G. Electricals & Generators,Devarachikkanahalli Main Road,B.G.Road, II M Post,Bangalore – 560 076.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri Hari Builders,No.38/1, Upstair, R.V Road,Opp. Vijaya College,Basavanagudi,Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay the balance of amount of Rs.11,250/- and for damages of Rs.5,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> OP availed the services of the complainant with regard to waterproof work to their project Nursing College Hospital at Thataguni, Bangalore. Complainant attended to the said work to the satisfaction of the OP but OP paid only 80% of the work done. Retained 20% under the guise that they will verify the work for 6 months. Even after lapse of 6 months that is 04.06.2008 OP did not pay him the amount which is in due. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to pay the remaining amount went in futile. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the contention of the complainant that OP availed his services with regard to waterproof coating of chejja, sanitary top and sides as well as sanitary line bore packing with respect to the Nursing College, Hospital at Thataguni the project which they are building. Complainant gave the estimation with regard to the waterproofing on 30.11.2007 for a total cost of Rs.56,249/-. The final bill in that regard is produced. It is further contended that there was an understanding between the complainant and the OP that 80% of the amount will be paid after the completion of the project and remaining 20% will be retained for 6 months under observation with respect of quality of work done.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant submits that the said 6 months is over by 04.06.2008. Thereafter he made demand to the OP by addressing letter on 09.06.2008 to pay the remaining 20% of the amount Rs.11,250/-. Copy of the letter is produced. OP site Engineer received the said letter and endorsed on the letter that work done is ok, there is no leakage and suggested for release of remaining amount. That endorsement is not denied by the OP. With all that to the reasons best known to OP failed to pay the said amount in due. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged, which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant though attended to all the work as contemplated, unfortunately unable to reap the fruits of his hard work because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss also. We are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is entitled for relief claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay the balance of Rs.11,250/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />