K.Sadananda Rao,Radhakrishna Bhavan filed a consumer case on 30 Sep 2008 against Hashim,Aswathy, Cutcherry Ward in the Kollam Consumer Court. The case no is CC/06/45 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/45
K.Sadananda Rao,Radhakrishna Bhavan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Hashim,Aswathy, Cutcherry Ward
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complainant has filed this complaint to realize an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the opp.party and for compensation. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The opp.party is a Contractor who constructed the northern boundary wall of the complainants property for consideration. The wall of the complaints property was demolished as a part of the road widening by the land acquisition authorities. It was specifically agreed in the agreement that the wall will be completed in one month. But unfortunately the wall was not completed an a greed and low quality materials were used for constructing the wall and as such the opp.party has collected an exorbitant amount. Moreover the opp.party though orally agreed for Rs.30,000/- for constructing, the opp.party did not reduced into evicting but confused the complainant and after putting the signature the amount Rs.56,000/- was written. When it was questioned later the opp.party assured that Rs.30,000/- need be given and the agreement is only a procedure. Even though the complainant demanded for the bills the opp.party did not show any bills. The opp.party has obtained more money from the complaint by unfair trade practice. By the acts of the opp.party complaint had to face financial loss to the tune of Rs.27,000/- being the excess amount obtained from the complainant. Hence the complaint Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Reliefs and costs. 3. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P4 are marked Points 1 and 2 The opp.party was absent. Hence he stands declared exparte. Opp.party did not turn up to adduce any evidence. We have carefully perused the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant and expert report filed by the expert. As no evidence is adduced from the side of the opp.party, we are constrained to rely upon the exparte evidence. Ext.P4 shows that the total estimated cost of execution comes to Rs.31,500/-. Through affidavit, documents [Ext.P1 to P3] and through the expert report the complainant proved his case. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to give back Rs.30,000/- to the complainant which was obtained by the opp.party from the complainant by using unfair trade practice with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.2.2004 till payment. The opp.party is further directed to pay R.5,000/-as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. K. Sadananda Rao List of documents for the complainant P1. Photocopy of agreement P2. Copy of advocate notice P3. Acknowledgement card and postal receipt P4. Expert report.
......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President ......................RAVI SUSHA : Member ......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.