By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complainant entrusted the Opposite party for the construction of the doors and windows for using it in the newly constructing house of the Complainant. The assurance of the Opposite Party at the time of entrusting the work was that the door-jambs and window- jambs would be given and it would be fitted to the gaps left after erecting the walls lintel and roof works. When the complainant demanded the Opposite Party after the structure work of the house including the arch windows was constructed and that were kept in the shop of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had taken the door-jambs to the newly constructed house of the Complainant and when it was fitted in the gape it appeared that the frame of the doors found to be not same in length and some of them were not tallying with the measurement. The Complainant had to fix the doors in support of screws. The Opposite Party was given the required quantity of wood for the construction of door-jambs and windows assured. The defective work of the Opposite Party caused heavy loss to the Complainant. The Complainant has to find out near about Rs.20,000/- for constructing the doors and windows afresh to replace the same supplied by the Complainant. More over if any innovation work is done it would perhaps lessen the strength of the building. The Complainant is to be compensated for it.

2. The Opposite Party filed version, interalia contented by the facts alleged by the Complainant. The facts in version in short is as follows. The complaint is not maintainable and it does not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and moreover barred by limitation. The concern of the Opposite Party is a reputed firm, the doors-jambs and window-jambs are constructed according to the plan given by the Complainant. The Complainant had given the pieces of the logs which were cut by the Complainant himself and the construction was done as demanded by the Complainant. The door-jambs and window-jambs were made by the Opposite Party from his shop. The pieces required for the construction of door-jambs and window jambs were supplied by the Complainant and those were handed over to the Opposite Party to be structured as per the plan given. The Complainant has to give Rs.10,000/- towards the charge of the work and Rs.75,000/- is yet to be given to the Opposite Party as the price of the timber given to the Complainant. The construction of the door-jambs and window-jambs are in tally with plan given by the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party and as a result the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Is there any deficiency in service in the work of the Opposite Party?

3. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The Opposite Party invoked the lapse of limitation. The work was completed in the year 2003 and the complaint filed is not within the stipulated time of 2 years upon which the complaint is to be dismissed. Ext.B1 is the completion report produced by the Opposite Party to substantiate the contention. The completion certificate is issued by one Jithendra kumar who is examined as OPW2. In oral testimony this witness admitted that the completion of the work was not in effect when the certificate issued in the year 2003. The certificate was issued only for the purpose of getting electric connection. Beyond that in the complaint itself it is seen that the Opposite Party was in dispute with the complainant to get the amount due from him. In this regard the Opposite Party filed the petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, Mananthavady. In toto of this facts it is to be considered that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation.

5. Point No.2:- The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavits basing on their contentions. Exts.A1 to A6 are marked in support of the contentions of the Complainant. Ext. B1 is the document marked for the Opposite Party. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are also marked as the exhibits of the Forum. 

6. The Complainant's case is that the Opposite Party was entrusted to carry out the work of constructing the door-jambs and window-jambs. The work carried out by the Opposite Party comprises 10 doors-jambs and 2 arch windows which all are to be fixed in the gap left open for installation of the same. The door-jambs and window-jambs are not fixing correctly in the gap because of the difference in the length of the jambs. The case of the Opposite Party is that the complaint turned out the demand of the Opposite Party to pay him the amount due from the Complainant. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party it is admitted that the Opposite Party who is examined as OPW1 is not in the habit of disposing unsized wood to the party instead the Opposite Party engages in the construction work as per the plan given by the respective party. Ext.A3 is admitted by the Opposite Party that it details the measurements of door-jambs and windows which are to be constructed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has not produced any document to show that the construction of the door-jambs and window-jambs were done according to the measurements given by the Complainant. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner and expert Commissioner respectively. According to the report of the Commissioner Ext.C1 there are difference in length in the vertical frames of the doors. The Opposite Party contented that the door-jambs and window-jambs including the arch window were constructed in accordance with the plan given by the Complainant. Ext.A4 is the proposed plan and Ext.A5 is the constructed plan. No where in the index of this plans the measurements of the window-jambs and door-jambs are in tally with the report of the Commissioner. It is already admitted by the Opposite Party that the construction of door-jambs and window-jambs are done from the shop of the Opposite Party in accordance with the plan given by the C.P. Architect. More over the Opposite Party has not produced anything to establish his case that the construction of the doors and windows were done relying on any other plan if given to the Opposite Party. Based on the discussion above the Opposite Party's construction of door-jambs and window-jambs are not in accordance with the plan given by the Complainant which is a deficiency in service and the point No.2 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.3:- The supplied of doors and window-jambs to the Complainant were fixed in the house constructed by the Complainant. Ext.C1(a), the report of the Expert Commissioner amplifies that the doors and window-jambs fixed in the house are not sufficient enough and insecure to the strength. To make the house secure the door-jambs and window-jambs in accurate measurement are to be fixed in the house. The construction of Complainant's house are still under pendancy because of this drawback. According to the Expert Commissioner the reconstruction of door-jambs and window-jambs caused an expenses of Rs.35,000/-. The Complainant filed objection to the Commissioner Report and pleaded that the commissioner has not considered the actual cost required for the reconstruction of the doors and windows. Any how we find that for the construction of door-jambs and window-jambs Rs.35,000/- the Complainant has to meet further. The Opposite Party has to pay the cost and compensation to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party directed to give the Complainant Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) for the construction of doors and window-jambs. The Opposite Party is further directed to give the Complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards the compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost. This order is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st March 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Radhakrishnan Complainant.

PW2. Mathew Asst. Engineer, Minor Irrigation.

PW3. Jameela Advocate.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Madhusoodhanan. Carpentry

OPW2. Jithendra Kumar. Diploma Engineer Private.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series Postal Receipt, Acknowledgment, Lawyer Notice. dt:09.08.2009.

(3 in numbers)

A2. Lawyer Notice dt:27.09.2006.

A3. Measurement details of Doors and Windows.

A4. Proposed Plan.

A5. Constructed Plan

A6. Letter. dt:13.11.2007.

C1. Commission Report. dt:19.12.2007.

C1. Letter. dt:13.12.2007.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Completion Certificate. dt:15.06.2004.