DOF.09.08.2011
DOO25.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Dated this, the 25th day of 2012
CC.No.259/2011
T.V.Firdous,
‘Thikkille Veettil’,.
Edakkad Panchayth,
PO.Attadappa 670 006. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.T.Manoj Kumar)
K.Jayan,
Chelora Amsom,
Kappad Desom,
P.O.Kappad 670 006 Opposite party
(Rep. by Adv.K.N.Shaji)
O R D E R
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member
This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay
`1, 00,000 as compensation with cost.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party had agreed to construct the proposed private road from the wife house of the complainant and also to construct a wall having 80 meter length and 5 ft. width at the side of the road within two weeks from 14.4.11 for an amount of `85000 including the wages of workers and cost of materials. The opposite party received a total amount of `31,400 on different dates namely `10,000 on 7.4.2011, `15,000 on 13.4.11 and `6400 on 9.5.11. Above this the complainant had purchased materials for construction including laterite stone, jelly, sand, cement, rod and connected pipe for an amount of `63,610 including transportation charges. So the complainant had incurred total amount of `95,110 instead of `85,000 promised by opposite party. Even though the complainant paid the amount opposite party miserably failed to discharge his legal obligation. He has not completed the construction work of the wall and road. The space allotted for construction of road also become useless. The partial construction of compound wall would not serve any purpose. Opposite party agreed to construct the wall having the height of 5 ft and length of 80 meter, the wall is being constructed only about 50 meters and the width of compound wall is 3ft instead of 5 meter and the wall is constructed without any foundation and hence it will be collapsed at any time. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in constructing the compound wall and road as agreed. So the complainant has sustained heavy mental as well as monetary loss. Hence this complaint.
Even though proper notice was issued to the opposite party and intimation given, he remained absent and hence the name was called and he was absent and hence he was set exparte.
The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1.
The complainant’s case is that even though he has paid `31,400 as labour charge and purchased materials worth `63,610, the opposite party has not completed the construction of the road and compound wall and hence complainant has suffered so much of mental and monetary loss The Ext.A1 is the agreement executed between the complainant and opposite party. The agreement is executed to the effect that there is default on the part of the opposite party in constructing the road and compound wall as promised and will complete the construction within one week of execution of Ext.A1 agreement. This Ext.A1 itself shows that there is default on the part of opposite party in constructing the compound wall and road. Opposite party admits in the agreement that he has defaulted in completing construction. Even though proper intimation was given to the opposite party he remains absent before the Forum and hence thee is no denial of the pleadings made by the complainant. The non- appearance of opposite party itself is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. From the pleadings it is seen that the complainant had paid for the service rendered by opposite party and hence he is a consumer and the complaint is filed for compensation for the service deficiency of opposite party in completing the construction of compound wall and proposed road. So the Ext.A1 along with affidavit substantiate the case of the complainant so we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant by giving `10,000 as compensation with `1000 as cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay `10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation with `1,000(Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1.Agreement
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
