IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 30^th  day of September  2022.

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 94/2022 (Filed on 04-05-2022)

Petitioner                                            :         Thomas Joseph,

                                                                   Pooyallil House,

                                                                   Karikkattoor Centre P.O.,

                                                                   Manimala, Kottayam – 686544

         Vs.

Opposite party                                   :         Lal Jose,

                                                                   St.Mary’s Road Tarring Works,

                                                                   Ettumanoor,

                                                                   Kottayam.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

The complaint is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, eeeeeeee2019.

Case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant engaged the opposite party to tar the private road leading to his house. After measuring the road, the opposite party agreed that he would tar 1000 sq.ft for Rs.80,000/- at the rate of Rs.80 per sq.ft. The tar work was done on 25^th  and 26^th  January 2022. However the road has been damaged due to the insufficient mixing of the tar. Thereafter the opposite party has done some maintenance work. When the complainant rised some doubts about the total area which was tarred, the opposite party measured the total road portion as 1295 Sq.ft and settled amount after deducting 145Sq.ft. but when the complainant measured the total tarred portion it is understood that the tarred total area is below 1000 Sq.ft. when the complainant filed a petition before the police authorities it is directed by the police authorities to measure the area with a third person . But the opposite party was not ready for that.

Thereafter when the complainant measured the tarred portion by a surveyor it is revealed that the total tarred portion in only 965 Sq.ft . According to the complainant the opposite party has received charge for 185 sq.ft which was not tarred by the opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.14,800/- along with                      Rs.1000/- which is the fee for the surveyor.

Though the notice was served to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not care to appear before the commission and filed version. Hence opposite party declared as ex-party.

Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant.

Points for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency inn service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs?

Point number 1 and 2

The specific case of the complainant is that he had engaged the opposite party to tar the private road leading to his house and the opposite party received the amount for the untarred portion also by misleading the complainant.                           The opposite party agreed to do the tar at a rate of Rs.80 per sq.ft. Exibit A1 is the estimate prepared by the opposite party for the said tar work. On perusal of exhibit A1 we can see that the total area to be tarred is shown as 1005 sq.ft and the rate is Rs.80 per sq.ft. it is further recorded in exhibit A1 that the total amount is rounded of as Rs.80000/- instead of Rs.80,400(1005x80).

According to the complainant the tarred portion was damaged due to the sufficient usage of tar and the opposite party carried out the maintenance work . It is further averred in the complaint that the opposite party made to believe the

complainant that he had tarred total area 1295 Sq.ft and settled total amount after deducting charges for145Sq.ft. When the complainant realized that the total tarred area was below 1000 Sq.ft he lodged a complaint before the police authorities and the opposite party was not ready to measure the tarred portion as directed by the police authorities. Exhibit A2 is the measurement of the tarred portion of the road. On perusals of Exhibit A2 we can see that the same was prepared by K.K Sseendran who is a land surveyor and the total tarred area is 965 sq.ft. Thus it is evident that the opposite party had tarred 40 sq.ft less than 1005 sq.ft. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite party has received                           Rs.3,200/- for the portion which is not tarred by him and the said act amounts to deficiency in service. Though the complainant pleaded that he had paid charges for 1,150 sq.ft to the opposite party, the complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allow this complaint in part.

1. The opposite party is direct to pay Rs.3200/-  to the complainant together with 9 % from 4-5-2022 ie. the date on which he complaint is filed till the date of realization.

The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. 

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of September, 2022

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                 Sd-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Copy of agreement signed by opposite party

A2 – Copy of report and measurement of tarring

A3- Copy of visiting card of opposite party

A4 – Copy of statement of expenditure

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                          By Order

                                                                                  Assistant Registrar