Order-10.

Date-30/11/2015.

In this complaint Complainant BanshidharBaijnathJalanSeva Trust by filing this complaint has submitted that op is the contractor who was allotted the water proofing work for prevention of seepage of water at the address mentioned in the cause title of the complainant and the work was allotted to the op in the month of June-2015 for water proofing work at the BanshidharBaijnathJalanSeva Trust and op carried its business in the name and style as Siona Enterprises, the contractor/promoter for that work op raised a bill of Rs. 14,000/- along with service tax of Rs. 15,960/-and payment was made in two parts, firstly on 23.06.2015 vide a cheque bearing no. 042852 for Rs. 8,400/- and thereafter by another cheque bearing no. 402854 dated 01.07.2015 of Rs. 7,560/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 15,960/- which was paid prior for initiation of the said work.

Fact remains that op at the time of executing the work assured orally that in case of any seepage of water within 10 years from completion of work, op shall undertake the repairing work within 7 days from the date of complain.Then complainant reported his grievance of seepage of water on 11.07.2015 to the op by a letter but that letter was returned with an endorsement ‘D/C’.Complainant complained about the seepage of water at the lift pit from where continuous flowing of water causing short circuit of electricity thereby lift in a non-working state.They also stated that the purpose of water proofing was made to prevent any seepage of water so that the lift may operate without any hindrance.But op did not pay any heed in receiving the copy of the letter of the complainant and complainant also stated that the total consideration value of work i.e. Rs. 15,960/- was paid prior to initiation of work but op did not pay any heed in repairing the seepage water of the complainant.

So, complainant through their Ld. Advocate sent a letter dated 28.07.2015 to the op.But after receiving the same op did not bother but op assured at the time of undertaking the work that the repairing seepage of water if any shall be undertaken within a period of 10 years from date but it was alarming to see that there was seepage of water within a period of 15 days from the date of completion and due to such seepage the lift was not working and also short circuit of electricity.Complainant also stated that after sending of two letters i.e. on 11.07.2015 and 28.07.2015, op did not pay any heed and did not send any executive for inspection of the seepage water and for their long delay to repair of the water proofing which caused continuous seepage in this monsoon season and neglecting to repair the same.

Complainant also stated that they were suffering from acute financial hardship for which lift could not be repaired and complainant repeatedly requested for sending his executive for inspection for the seepage of water but op failed and neglected to provide any information to the claim of the complainant.In such circumstances, complainant visited the site personally and was surprised to see that no person from the office of op visited the place where the cause of action arose.

In such circumstances, complainant filed this complaint against the op for not getting the service from the op, for the op’s negligence and deficiency in service, complainant suffered financial loss and damages, harassment, mental pain and agony for which complainant prayed for redressal, compensation and also litigation cost.

Notice was duly served to the op on 01.09.2015 and on 22.09.2015 was fixed for filing written version by the op, but op was absent on that date and till now op has not followed any order of this Forum.In such circumstances the case is heard finally in exparte form.

Decision with reasons

          On proper evaluation of the complaint and documents filed by the complainant and also considering the entire record, it is found that notice was duly served to op of this case, but they did not turn up, not only that complainant sent a copy of the E-chief by Speed Post and that was also received by the op.  But op did not turn up to contest this case.

          In the above circumstances, considering the negative attitude of the op and their no intention to contest this case even after sending the notice of this case of the complaint and the E-chief filed by the complainant, we have gathered that complainant sent a notice of the complaint and a copy of the complaint and on receipt op realized what is the allegation of the complainant but he did not turn up.  It indicates that they have their no say or defence for which they did not turn up to contest this case.

          In the above situation after considering the materials on record, we have gathered that op is no doubt a contractor executed the water proofing work of BanshidharBaijnathJalanSeva Trust and no doubt it is proved that op received Rs. 15,960/- from the complainant and that was paid by the complainant and that amount was paid for water proofing to prevent for the water seepage at the said building and a complaint was lodged to the op in the month of June-2015 for defective water proofing work what op carried out and op assured that in case of seepage of water within 10 years from completion of work, op shall undertake the repairing work within 7 days from the date of complain.

          But peculiar factor is that just after completion of op’s water proofing work on the roof top again it recurred for which complainant reported his grievance to the op.  Thereafter reported it by a letter to the op dated 11.07.2015, but that letter was returned.  Complainant also reported about the seepage of water at the lift pit from where continuous flowing of water caused short circuit of electricity thereby lift is in a non-working stage and they also reported the op about the seepage of water from the roof.  But op did not pay any heed after receiving the copy of the letter of the complainant and such an act on the part of the op is no doubt unfair practice and deficiency of service and no doubt from the documents, it is found that complainant reported the matter.

          Now it is the duty of the op to show that water proofing work for prevention of seepage of water in the complainant’s building, everything was correctly done and there was no question of seepage of water.  But op did not bother to respond against such letter of the complainant, not even op bothered to contest this case even after receipt of the notice of this complaint and also the E-chief of the complainant and such sort of negative attitude of the op also proves that op has not defence for which they have not appeared to contest this case even after receipt of notice of the complaint and copy of E-chief and it is no doubt deficient manner of service.

          No doubt it is the duty of the op as service provider to show that water proofing at the complainant’s building was done properly but that has not been stated any way by the op.  Further considering the op’s negative attitude, we have convinced to hold that complainant’s allegation against the op is a fact for which op did not appear knowing fully well that they have their no defence.

          In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that op did not discharge his duties properly as service provider though he has received the money from the SevaPratisthan and such an act on the part of the op is no doubt unfair trade practice.  Moreover this complainant with folded hand requested the op by a letter to repair the same, but they did not do that for which complainant lodged a complaint to CA&FBP where they did not turn up and thereafter complainant filed this complaint for relief to this Forum.  So, they are entitled to get the compensation, litigation cost including refund of money of Rs.15,960/- which was paid by the complainant for water proofing work for prevention of water seepage from the roof.

          In the result, this complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the op with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

          Op is hereby directed to refund Rs. 15,960/- and also compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassing the complainant and for deceiving the complainant in such a manner.

          Accordingly op is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,960/- paid amount for service + Rs.10,000/- as compensation + Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost i.e. total Rs. 35,960/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non-compliance of Forum’s order and for harassing the complainant for further period, op shall have to pay penal interest  at the rate of Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.

          Even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order, in that case, op shall be prosecuted u/s 25 read with Section-27 of C.P. Act 1986, for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the op.