Date of filing : 21-07-08 Date of order : 19-12-08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.119/08 Dated this, the 22nd day of December 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.M.A.Basheer, T.M. House, Kollampady, } Complainant Po.Kasaragod. (In person) Latheef, Chalyamkod, Near Kollan House, } Opposite party Po.Kalanad. (In person) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complaint is against the defective construction of the compound wall by opposite party. According to complainant the compound wall constructed by the opposite party collapsed due to lack of sufficient foundation. Even though opposite party assured to reconstruct the wall, he withdrew from his promise later. Therefore the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Opposite party appeared and filed version. According to him the compound wall was collapsed since the complainant had tried to increase the height of the compound wall by using laterite stones additionally on the wall constructed by opposite party and also filling the gap between the wall and the boundary by mud. He was willing to reconstruct the compound wall provided the complainant arrange a coolie worker to remove the stones and mud from the construction site. The complainant was not willing to arrange the coolie worker. Hence he could not reconstruct the wall. 3. Complainant examined as PW1 and opposite party tendered evidence as DW1. Both sides were heard. 4. Complainant as PW1 deposed that he had a loss of Rs.11,000/- due to the damage of compound wall. Opposite party as DW1 testified that the work done by him was not a contract work but a labour work. But he deposed that 3 workers were worked under him on the first day of work and there after he completed the work with only a helper. The opposite party also deposed that he was agreed to reconstruct the wall if the stones and mud were removed from the damaged site. 5. The contention of the opposite party that he had done only coolie work is not acceptable in view of the fact that 3 workers arranged by him were worked under him for the construction of the compound wall. 6. The opposite party as DW1 has deposed that he had agreed to rectify the collapsed compound wall provided the mud and stones are removed by the complainant. The said statement shows that the wall was collapsed due to the defective construction, other wise he would not have agreed to reconstruct the ruined compound wall. Therefore we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation towards the reconstruction of the damaged compound wall. Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time 1 month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT PW1. T.M.A.Basheer DW1. Abdul Latheef Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
