| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Wednesday the 30th day of October 2024 CC.344/2023 Complainant Karunakaran, S/o. Othenan, Samrudhi House, Kollam. P.O, Koyilandi. Opposite Party K. Khalid, Karikkintavida House, Beach Road, Koyilandi. ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant entrusted the work of digging a bore well in his property to the opposite party for Rs. 45,000/-. The bore well was intended to get drinking water for use in his house. It was agreed by the opposite party that good quality pipe with ISI mark would be used for the work. - On 9/04/2023 the work was done and at 27 metres water was found. But the opposite party used substandard quality pipe for the bore well. He received the entire payment of Rs. 45,000/- from the complainant.
- Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant installed a motor for getting water from the bore well. But surprisingly, no water was obtained. But only sand came up. Though he informed the opposite party about the same, he did not turn up or do anything to address his concerns over the matter. On inspection by experts, it was realised that the pipes were broken as they were of poor quality and that was the reason for not getting water from the bore well. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade and business practice and also deficiency of service. The complainant was put to intense mental agony and inconvenience due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite party. On 14/06/2023 a lawyer notice was issued to the opposite party, which evoked no response. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 45,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
- The opposite party has entered appearance and filed written version wherein he has denied all the allegations made against him in the complaint. The digging of bore well in the property of the complainant is admitted. The amount agreed was Rs. 1,900/- per metre. The complainant was informed that for using ISI mark pipe, the rate would be at least Rs. 2,300/- per metre. But the complainant was not ready for that stating paucity of funds. On digging, water was available at 27 metres. As it was a sandy area, the complainant was advised to use jet motor. But he did not install jet motor and used another type of motor and that was the reason for the issue. Still an amount of Rs. 18,400/- was due to him from the complainant. There was no defect or latches on his part. None of the reliefs is allowable. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. The commission report was marked as Ext C1. At the time of evidence, the opposite party remained absent and PW1 was not cross examined and no evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party.
- Heard.
- Point No.1:- The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The grievance projected in the complaint is that the bore well was dug by the opposite party using low quality pipe, as a result of which, the pipe was broken and the purpose of the bore well was defeated and the opposite party failed to take any positive steps to redress the grievance of the complainant in this regard. The prayer in the complaint is for refund of the amount of Rs. 45,000/- paid to the opposite party for the work along with compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 14/06/2023, Ext A2 is the postal acknowledgment card, Ext A3 is the print out of google pay and Ext A4 is the pen drive.
- PW1 was not cross examined and his evidence stands unchallenged. Though the opposite party has filed version denying and disputing the allegations and the claims and contending that a total amount of Rs. 18,400/- is due from the complainant, he opted to remain absent at the time of evidence and PW1 was not cross examined. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked by the complainant. The evidence of PW1 remains uncontroverted and PW1 was not even cross examined. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant. The complainant has proved his case through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 and C1.
- The purpose of the bore well was not served due to the unfair trade and business practice indulged by the opposite party and also on account of deficiency in service on his part. It is also in evidence that Ext A1 lawyer notice was accepted by the opposite party on 16/06/2023 as can be seen from Ext A2. But it is seen that the opposite party has not sent any reply to Ext A1. If the contention of the opposite party that there was no latches or negligence or unfair business practice on his part and that the entire payment is not made by the complainant is true and correct, nothing prevented him from sending a reply to Ext A1 stating the real facts. But that was also not done. This is also a strong circumstance which goes against the opposite party.
- To sum up, we find that there is proof of unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had to spend Rs. 45,000/- for the bore well which did not serve the purpose due to the latches of the opposite party.. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the said amount. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to intense mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. Point found accordingly.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
- CC.344/2023 is allowed.
- The opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
- The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 45,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
- No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of October, 2024. Date of Filing: 16.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ext.A1 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 14/06/2023. Ext.A2 – Postal acknowledgment card. Ext.A3 – Print out of google pay. Ext.A4 – Pen drive. Exhibits for the Opposite Party Nil. Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Karunakaran (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite parties Nil. Witnesses for the Commission CW1 – Expert Commissioner Reoprt. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER True Copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
