IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the  18^th day of May, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 20/2021 (filed on 28-01-2021)

Petitioner                                 :         Akbar P.A.

                                                          Mekkattilkunnel,

                                                          Kumaranalloor P.O.

                                                          Kottayam – 686016.

                                                                     Vs. 

Opposite party                        :         Joseph,

                                                          Muttathupadath,

                                                          Arpookkara P.O.

                                                          Kottayam  - 686008.

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

The complainant took the opposite party’s house for lease on 14.10.2020 for 11 months but shifted from there on the 75^th day. The electricity used in this period was only 367 units. But when the complainant vacated the house, the opposite party returned only 5,94,000/- instead of Rs.6,00,000/-.The bill amount of Rs.800 was already paid. The opposite party has deducted Rs.6,800/-  in total including the payment made by the complainant . So the complaint is filed for a direction to return the money deducted by the opposite party from the lease amount.

Even after receipt of notice, the opposite party did not appear before this commission or filed version. Hence the opposite party is set exparte.

The complainant did not turn up for adducing evidence in spite of repeated notices. No proof affidavit or documents filed.

The complainant has filed only the lease agreement as the supporting document and this is marked as exhibit A1 from the part of the complainant.

The points to be decided can only be framed upon the pleadings and available evidence.

The point to be considered is whether the complainant has established the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if so whether he is eligible for any compensation?

The allegation of the complainant is that he has taken the house of the opposite party on lease and at the time of vacating the house, the opposite party has made unnecessary deduction which was already paid by the complainant towards electricity charges. The complaint is filed for returning the money deducted and compensation.

Though filed the complaint along with the lease deed, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the act of the opposite party in making unnecessary deductions from the lease amount etc. Even after called upon for several times, the complainant did not care to appear or adduce evidence.

Hence in the absence of cogent evidence we find that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service if any on the part of the opposite party and consequently the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18^th day of May, 2022

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                 Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Contract dtd.14-10-2020 between complainant and opposite party

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                               Assistant Registrar