Kochi 682 024.                                                     Opposite party

(Rep. by Adv.A.V.Balachandran)

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 either to rectify the defects in the water cascade rock fall and rain effect system or to return  `95,000 with interest at 12% per annum from 2.9.2010 and `1,00,000 as compensation.

          The complainant contended that the opposite party canvassed order for installing water cascade rockfall and rain effect system in the complainant’s house for an amount of `85,000 with an assurance that the above work will be in perfect working condition without any defect within 20 days from 2.9.2010.The complainant after entrusting the work to opposite party left to Oman for his work. Even though the above said amount fixed for inclusive of all material and labour cost, the mother of the complainant gave `10,000 for the materials apart from `85,000. But when the complainant returned he noticed that the opposite party has not used the original rock and instead he installed a rock like cement structure and apart from the leakage in the water cascade. Due to leakage dampness is caused in the wall which resulted in awkwardness in the appearance of house. So the complainant request the opposite party to rectify the defects and the opposite party assured the same. But the opposite party was not rectified the defects till today. The leakage was caused due to poor workmanship and using low quality materials. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice to opposite party. But the opposite party has not rectified the defects till today. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version. But subsequently he was absent and hence declared exparte. The opposite party filed version with the following contentions. The opposite party admits that he was done the work and commissioned in time as assured to him. But denied that he had promised the complainant that original rocks will be used for the system. Because rock cascade was usually done in concrete and rock line coating and original rock cannot remolded for water flow. The other contentions that the opposite party received `10,000 more from complainant’s mother is false and hence denied. There was no service contract to rectify the defect in future. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A5 and C1.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant filed chief affidavit in lieu with his pleadings. According to the complainant he has given `85,000 for the work and the opposite party has received `1000 more from the complainant’s mother and the work done was not perfect having leakage. The commissioner also submitted report before the Forum stating that the work done was incomplete and having leakage and wall was attacked with fungus. The commissioner submitted that the work was incomplete and pipes and light fixed in the tub was not in good condition. There is no contra evidence before the Forum and the opposite party remains absent and has not come before the forum to prove his contention. This itself shows the unfair trade practice. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he has either to rectify the defect or to refund `85,000 received by him along with `5000 as cost and compensation. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the opposite party has received `10,000 more from the complainant and order passed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint allowed directing the opposite party either to rectify the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant or to refund `85,000 (Rupees Eighty five Thousand only) received by him along with `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost and compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                             Sd/-                           Sd/-                            

                        President                     Member    

APPENDIX                              

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the bill issued by OP

A2. Copy of the receipt issued by OP

A3. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A4 & A5. Postal receipt and AD

Exhibits for the court

C1. Commission report

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.