BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
APPEAL No.780/2014
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Sri.Manjunath Nayak
S/o late Subbanna Nayak
Aged 69 years,
R/o “Nayak House” ... Appellant/s
Barke, Mannagudda
Mangalore-575 003
(By Sri.Punikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate)
-V/s-
Sri.Hemanth, Major,
Prop: Hemanth Water Proof
Technologies,
“Suraksha” Ballya Compound,
II Cross Road, … Respondent/s
Kodical,Ashoknagar (P.O)
Mangalore-575 006
(By Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty.K., Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mangalore in CC.No.351/2011 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the complaint filed by the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had availed the service of the Opposite Party to clear the leakage in his RCC slab. The Opposite Party introduced the complainant as an expert/specialist in clearing the leakages in the RCC slab and represented that there will not be any leakages in the RCC slab for the next 10 years after repairing. After inspecting the area the Opposite party estimated the cost of the repair of Rs.70,000/- and thereafter he demanded more in all Rs.2,45,000/- to the Opposite Party. It is stated that the work of repair completed in the month of June 2008 but the work done by the Opposite Party is totally defective. There were leakages as before in the RCC slab even after repair. The complainant informed the Opposite Party and requested to them to rectify the same but the leakage was continued and it is contended that the complainant fed up with the service of the Opposite Party and he was constrained to make alternative arrangement for preventing the leakages by putting up sheets over the present RCC slab by spending Rs.3,35,520/-. It is stated that service rendered by the Opposite Party is defective which amounts to deficiency and hence the complainant filed the above complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. Notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version denied the allegations alleged in the complaint and stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Party to give estimation and bill regarding the repair of leakages in the RCC slab of schedule houses. The Opposite Party without knowing and ulterior intention of the complainant gave the Bill/Estimation to the complainants. But after visiting to the property of the complainant the Opposite Party observed many requirements to be done before the repair of leakage in the RCC slab and after that the complainant got the repair of leakages done by some other his known people, but refusal of the Opposite Party to do the work made the complainant to file this false complaint and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After trial, District Consumer Commission, Mangalore dismissed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that it is evident that the respondent assured to the appellant for leakage repair work in the RCC slab beside the outside house of the appellant situated in Kodialbail village of Mangalore city. It is also evident that the appellant has paid Rs.2,45,899/- to the respondent which was acknowledged by the respondent and undertook and guaranteed the work done by him and business terms and contract job mentioned warranty period five years. The allegations of the appellant is that in spite of taking Rs.2,45,899/- the respondent has failed to repair leakage in the RCC slab in the appellant house. The repair work done by the respondent in the month of June, 2008 but it was totally defective there were leakages as per even after repair and also after several requests to rectify the same the respondent refused and the appellant fed up with the service of the respondent attempt to arrangement for preventing the leakages by putting up sheet over the slab by spending of Rs.3,35,520/-.
8. After trail, the District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint and holds that the appellant has not produced expert opinion to determine the alleged defects and also not made any application for appointment of commissioner to hold local inspection. We are not agreed with the order passed by the District Consumer Commission because the appellant has produced the evidence of CW-2 Mr.K.Krishnappa, who has put up the sheets over the slab to prevent the leakages and also the respondent has produced photographs regarding the repair work. Without considering this the District Consumer Commission has dismissed the complaint which is not just and proper. As per business terms and contract job after taking huge amount of Rs.2,45,000/- from the appellant. If the respondent done work properly, it was not necessary to the appellant to put the sheet over the slab to prevent leakages after spending of Rs.3,35,520/-. If the respondent assured to the appellant for the repair of leakages in the slab, it is bounden duty of the respondent to complete the work properly as per assurance and satisfied the appellant. After taking huge amount the respondent has not repair the leakages in the slab amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. Consequently the complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.2,45,000/- to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
Further the Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
