ORDER<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The opposite party received an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant undertaking to provide and fit with the roof of the complainant’s car shed and its door and one small gate and the main gate. It is also agreed that he will do the said works neatly on 10.7.2005. After receiving the said amount, he had not completed the work within the agreed period and he had not provided the main gate irrespective of the request of the complainant. So the complainant demanded the balance amount after deducting the amount for the works done by the opposite party. The opposite party given an excess bill dated 3.8.2005. Because of this, the complainant had suffered a great loss. The complainant made an assessment of the works done through an expert who assessed the cost of the works done is only Rs.6,000/-. The above said acts of the opposite party is a deficiency of service and he is liable to make good the loss of the complainant. He had sent an Advocate Notice to the opposite party who gave a reply stating false allegations. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an amount of Rs.4,000/-, the balance amount in the transaction with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of the proceedings. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party filed a written version and the main contentions are as follows: He admitted that he had agreed to provide the roof of the complainant’s car shed and its door and a small gate for an amount of Rs.12,932. The said works were done as per the verbal terms and conditions and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- by instalments and the complainant agreed to pay the balance of Rs.2,932/- later. The opposite party never agreed to provide the main gate as claimed by the complainant. In this transaction, there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.2,932/- from the complainant. When the opposite party demanded the balance payment, the complainant asked the opposite party to give the bill for the works done and accordingly he had given a bill for the same. The opposite party also contended that the complainant has not caused any loss or damages in this transaction. This complaint is filed without any bonafides and it is intended for causing loss and damages to the opposite party and to avoid the payment of the balance amount due to the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complainant with his cost.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> <br /> (1)Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the Forum?<br /> (3)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A4 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by him and the oral evidence of the opposite party who has been examined as DW1 and no documents marked in support of his case. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 6. Points 1 to 3: The complainant’s case is that the opposite party had undertaken to carry out the work of the complainant’s car shed roofing, its doors, a small gate and the main gate for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. But the opposite party had carried out except the work of the main gate. Without giving the main gate, the opposite party had received the entire amount and the works done according to the complainant is not satisfactory. The non-supply of the main gate and the dispute regarding the quality of the works done is a deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party. In order to prove the complainant’s allegations, he had deposed before this Forum and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 3.8.2005 issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,050/-. Ext.A2 is another bill dated nil issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.882/-. Ext.A3 is the Advocate Notice dated 3.8.2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party and Ext.A4 is the reply notice dated 18.8.2005 given by the opposite party through Adv. K.C. Thomas, Pathanamthitta. In Ext.A2, there is an endorsement showing that advance received 10,000/-, balance 2,932/-.<br /> <br /> 7. In order to substantiate the opposite party’s contention, he deposed before this Forum that he had undertaken only the works of the roof of the car shed, and its doors, and the small gate and amount agreed for the said work was Rs.12,932/- and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was received. The balance amount of Rs.2,932/- is due from the complainant. He also deposed that he had not undertaken the work of the main gate. As per the verbal terms and conditions, he had completed the work as ordered by the complainant. He admitted the issuance of Exts.A1 and A2.<br /> <br /> 8. On a perusal of the exhibits and the depositions of PW1 and DW1, it is clear that there is no written contract between the parties. Also there is no independence evidence regarding the terms and conditions of the works entrusted by the complainant and undertaken by the opposite party. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the work mentioned in Exts.A1 and A2. Exts.A1 and A2 does not shows the work of a main gate. It also discloses the specifications of the works undertaken by the opposite party. The complainant also admitted that the works of the car-shed roofing, its door and a small gate were provided and fitted by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 9. From the facts and circumstances and from the available evidence, it is clear that the complainant has not raised any objection about the works done by the opposite party before fitting the car shed roofing, gate etc. If the complainant had any objection regarding the quality and quantity of the works, he ought to have raised it before its installation. Here, he raised his objections only after the completion of the works. This cast doubts about the bonafides of the complainant in filing this complaint. The materials on records are not sufficient to establish any deficiency of the service from the part of the opposite party. In the circumstances, this complaint is not allowable.<br /> <br /> 10. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President)<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Apendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : C.J. Samuel.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Photocopy of the bill dated 3.8.2005 for Rs.12,050/- issued by the opposite <br /> party to the complainant.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of the bill dated nil for Rs.882/- issued by the opposite party <br /> to the complainant.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the Adv. Notice dated 3.8.2005 issued by the complainant <br /> to the opposite party.<br /> A4 : Photocopy of the reply notice dated 18.8.2005 issued by the opposite party to <br /> the complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:<br /> DW1 : Joy Mathew.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.