By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation of Rs.2.5 Lakhs from the opposite parties due to the deficient work of ring construction by them.
2. Brief of the complaint:- There was an old well in the courtyard of the complainant and she decided to protect the well by installing concrete rings in the well. For that she entrusted the work with opposite party No.1 on 15.03.2013 by giving Rs.1,40,000/- towards the total construction cost. Thereafter opposite party No.1 completed the work by 15.04.2013. Immediately after the newly installed rings crushed into pieces and thereby the well including pumpset completely covered with soil and totally destroyed on 26.07.2013. Now she has no water facility in her house. Complainant alleges that the opposite party No.1 constructed the rings by using substandard materials and therby the rings damages and resulted destruction of the well. So the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence filed this complaint.
3. Notices were sent to opposite party No.1 and he appeared and filed version. Subsequently opposite party No.2 impleaded but he was not present and set ex-parte.
4. Brief facts of version of opposite party No.1:- Opposite party No.1 stated that on February 2012 complainant's son-in-law approached this opposite party to discuss about the construction of the disputed well. As per his request this opposite party agreed to construct rings on daily wages basis, coolie fixed per day was Rs.400/-. Thereafter with the assistance of 4 other labourers this opposite party started the construction of rings on 10.02.2012 and completed the work by 03.04.2012. Opposite party No.1 further stated that he has constructed the rings under the supervision and control of opposite party No.2 and the complainant. All the materials for ring construction were supplied by the son-in-law of the (supplementary opposite party No.2) complainant. This opposite party installed the rings after getting consent and satisfaction from the complainant and opposite party No.2. This opposite party denied the acceptance of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant. Again this opposite party denied the allegation that the rings crushed into pieces and thereby the well completely destroyed is due to manufacturing defect. It need scientific examination to find out the cause of the destruction of the well. There is no agreement between this opposite party No.1 and the complainant, there is no money transaction between them. Hence opposite party No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. Opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1. Opposite party's witness examined as OPW2. In the witness box witness deposed that he received Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant and spend it to buy materials for ring construction and the pumpset with motor. The balance amount he spend to meet the labour costs. This witness was subsequently impleaded as opposite party No.2, he admitted the acceptance of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant. As per the Order of I.A.142/2014 an Expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum, he inspected the disputed well and report filed, that report was marked as Ext.C1. In the Commission Report, commissioner reported that the well in dispute was completely destroyed and the reinforcement cement concrete of the visible ring appeared to be substandard and suggested for further detailed study of geological department. Photographs were produced along with Commissioner's report from the photos Forum found that the well was completely destroyed and covered with soil. But the complainant could not prove or produce any evidence to prove any contractual liability between the opposite party No.1 and herself. As per the complaint as well as the chief affidavit, complainant alleged that she has given a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the
opposite party No.1 on 15.03.2013. Opposite party No.1 denied the acceptance of money but OPW2 admitted that he had received the alleged amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant and spent it to buy materials to construct rings, motor pumps and to meet labour cost of the workers. Opposite party No.2 contented that, he entrusted opposite party No.1 for the construction of the ring of disputed well, on daily wages basis the coolie agreed per day was Rs.400/-. This opposite party No.2 had supplied all the materials for construction. During inspection commissioner noticed a portion of ring and reported that the reinforcement cement concrete of the visible ring appears to be sub standard and he suggested for a detailed inspection by geological department but complainant had not taken any steps to find out the actual reason for the destruction of the well. As per the complaint and evidence of the opposite party this Forum found that the disputed well was very old one and it destroyed within one year after the ring construction. More over in Ext.C1, Commissioner reported that reinforcement cement concrete are not of standard quality. On going through the entire evidences this Forum of the view that complainant is entitled to get compensation for loss sustained due to the deficiency of service of opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, she is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) as compensation to the complainant and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as cost and compensation of the proceedings to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within
30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Otherwise opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2015.
Date of Filing:22.10.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Elikutty. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Mamootty. Coolie worker.
OPW2. Thankachan. Agriculture.
Exhibits for the complainant:
C1. Commissioner Report.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
