IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 186/2012 (Filed on 04.12.2012)
Between:
Geevarghese Koshy,
Palladamannil House,
Nariyapuram P.O.,
Vallicodu Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Pin – 689 513. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Anzil Zachariah)
And:
1. Jose. A.V.,
Adackal Jithu Bhavan,
Mathoor P.O., Kozhencherry-
Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
2. Mani Carpentering Works,
Mathoor P.O., Kozhencherry-
Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief fact of this case is as follows: The first opposite party is a contractor engaged in construction works. The second opposite party is engaged in carpentry works. On 2012 April, complainant and first opposite party entered into an agreement for the renovation work of the complainant’s house. As per the agreement, the renovation works will be completed within 3 months. First opposite party entrusted the carpentry works to second opposite party. Second opposite party made 2 windows at ` 4,500 each and one window for ` 7,000 and one door frame for ` 3,500. The opposite party charged ` 10,000 for removing the old ones and for fixing new wooden items. Complainant paid altogether ` 29,500 for the same to the second opposite party with the consent of first opposite party. Further opposite parties agreed to use Anjili wood of superior quality. But they used substandard wood.
3. Defects occurred in the construction work was beyond repairs. More than half of the work is pending. Complainant tried to contract the opposite parties directly and through telephone. But there was no response from the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties caused financial loss and great hardship to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite parties to return ` 29,500 already paid by the complainant along with compensation of ` 10,000 and ` 5,000 as cost of this proceedings as the works done are defective and the materials used are of low quality.
4. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
5. On the basis of the allegation in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that he had entrusted the renovation works of his house to the opposite parties during the month of April 2012. The agreement was to complete the work within 3 months using superior quality woods. The renovation work was not completed within the stipulated time. Moreover, they used poor quality wood instead of their undertaking to use superior quality anjili wood. The work was not completed also. Complainant paid ` 29,500 to the second opposite party with the consent of the first opposite party. Complainant tried to contact the opposite parties directly and through phone for completing the works and for curing the defects in the work. But there was no response from the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and great hardship to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Therefore complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. From the complaint and from proof the affidavit, it is found that the complainant had entrusted the renovation work of his house to the opposite parties. But the works carried out was defective and the materials used are of low quality and the work was also not completed within the time limit. Since the opposite parties are exparte, complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties stands proved as unchallenged and we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant. Therefore we find that the above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and this complaint can be allowed with cost and compensation.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the amount of ` 29,500 (Rupees Twenty nine thousand five hundred only) collected from the complainant with compensation of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount from the opposite parties with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of January, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Geevarghese Koshy, Palladamannil House,
Nariyapuram P.O., Vallicodu Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Pin – 689 513.
(2) Jose. A.V., Adackal Jithu Bhavan,
Mathoor P.O., Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(3) Mani Carpentering Works, Mathoor P.O.,
Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(4) The Stock File.
