D.O.F. 01.04.2008
D.O.O.14.12.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Dated this the 14th day of December 2011.
C.C.No.69/2008
O.Asokan,
‘Prasanna Nivas’,
Thattiyodu,
P.O.Koodali,
Kannur Dist. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.P.P.Satheesh)
K.P.Manoharan,
S/o.Narayanan Achari,
Kavullapurayil,
Chelora Amsom,
Thilannur Desom,
Kannur
(Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ratnakaran) Opposite Party
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay
`1, 25,000 with 9% interest as compensation with cost.
The case in brief of the complainant is that the opposite party is a carpenter by profession and had entrusted to opposite party the wooden works of doors and windows of his newly constructed house and opposite party had made 10 doors and windows. The complainant has purchased the wood for making doors and windows as per the instruction and supervision of opposite party. The complainant had spent `21,000 for the frond door including the artificial work. But the door including the artificial work was low quality and had a through crack through the length of the door. The doors and windows were not polished and have not done the finishing work also. The door cannot be opened properly and the lock also not functioning properly. All doors are in such a condition that it press towards the tiles and as a result some tiles were broken. Since the doors lack sufficient breadth it was filled by joining some piece of wood and towards the same cracks were seen. So the doors cannot be closed. Due to the deficient works the windows are also not in real position with the frame and the glasses of window were in loosened condition and some of the windows also seen broken. The friends and relatives of the complainant have pointed out all these defects at the time of house warming ceremony and hence the complainant was insulted and had suffered lot of mental pain. Moreover due to the deficient work of opposite party, the complainant has suffered both physical pain as well as financial loss also. So the complainant’s wife had issued a registered notice to opposite party and for that he had issued a reply stating untenable contentions. Actually the complainant suffered loss and for which he has prayed for compensation for an amount of
`1, 25,000. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed his version. He contended that the door frames and window frames are made by some other persons. But the opposite party has done the work of windows and doors only. But the wood given by the complainant is not suitable for making doors and windows, since it has not conditioned and properly dried. The opposite party has pointed out the same by telling that if the doors and windows were made with these woods it would be defective and also requested to replace the wood. But the complainant was not ready to heed the words of opposite party and compelled him to make doors and windows as soon as possible since he has to leave India within one month. At the time of work the complainant has no complaint about the work. Above all the complainant has kept an amount of `3750 as balance from his coolie and this complaint was filed to escape from the liability of paying that amount. The opposite party had done works of the house of some relatives of the complainant and they have no complaint against the work. The opposite party denied the averments that the doors and windows cannot be closed due to the defective work, the woods was purchased under the supervision and direction of opposite party, tiles were broken etc. are false and made only for the purpose of the case. The case is filed only to tackle over the liability of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been
raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of
opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as
prayed?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of
PW1, DW1 and CW1 and Ext. C and C1.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that due to lack of expertise and poor work man ship of carpentry works of doors and windows of the newly constructed house of the complainant he was not able to use the doors and windows properly and has suffered mental and physical pain and financial los and hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and Ext. C and C1, commission report and expert’s report were produced. In order to disprove the case the opposite party examined himself and the commissioner. According to opposite party the reason for defect of the work is that the doors and windows are made up of wood which were not properly dried and not suitable for making windows and doors. Even though he had pointed out the same, the complainant insisted him to make windows and doors with that wood and hence there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. But according to the complainant, the woods were purchased from opposite party’s person under the supervision and instruction of opposite party. “The opposite party deposed before the Forum that “]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ ho«nse ac-{]-hr-¯n-¡m-h-i-y-amb acT Fsâ IW¡v {]Im-c-amWv hm§n-bXp’. This shows that opposite party has knowledge about the purchase of woods. The opposite party has not produced any documents to prove his contention. According to opposite party, he had an experience of 30 years in this filed. He deposed before the Forum that “ hoSnsâ ]Wn ]mÀ«n \nÀt±-i-{]-Im-cT ]¨ac¯n FSp-¡m-dpv. Cu tIkn ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ \nÀt±-i-{]-Im-c-amWv ]¨-a-c-¯n ]Wn-sb-Sp-¯-Xp. ]¨ ac-¯n ]Wn-sb-Sp-¯m [mcm-fT complaint hcp-T-F¶ Im-c-yT And-bmT ”. The above deposition of the opposite party helps to decrease the credibility of the opposite party. He himself claimed that he is a person of having 30 years of experience and such a person has no hesitation to say that he is ready to do work with unconditioned wood. It also helps to draw an inference that the entire case put forwarded by him is only for the purpose of defending this case. A prudent man and a person having at least some ethics will not make such a version, because such an act will effect the entire profession. Moreover the expert Commissioner reported that the doors and windows became defective due to the negligence and due to lack of expertise of opposite party. 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.
The complainant contended that he had suffered so much of mental, physical and financial hardship due to the deficient work of opposite party. The commissioner contended that except one window all other doors and windows have to be replaced and cannot be refitted and calculated `1, 25,000 as the expense for wood and coolie. But it is true that the windows and doors are defective. But awarding `1, 25,000 to the complainant; is a double benefit to him. The opposite parties counsel argued vehemently that the entire defect can be rectified under the supervision of any qualified expert within 3 or 4 days. Considering this aspect and also considering that of already fitted doors and windows are there and the same can be utilised further, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get `45,000 as compensation with `2000 as cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay `45,000 (Rupees Forty five thousand only) as compensation and `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to this complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant: Nil
Exhibits for the opposite Party: Nil
Exhibits for the court
C & C1.Commission report
Witness examined for the Complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite Parties
DW1.K.P.Manoharan
Witness examined for the court
CW1.K.P.Nidesh
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent4/
