BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 358/2011 Filed on 16.11.2011

ORDER DATED: 17.12.2015

Complainant:

Devi C. Jayan, Proprietor, Green Land Lodge, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                 (By Adv. S. Mohan Das)

Opposite parties:

1. Manoj M.R, DIXE NI, Jawahar Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.

2. DIXE NI, Jawahar Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Chief Executive Manoj M.R.

(By Adv. R. Ram Mohan)

This C.C having been heard on 29.10.2015, the Forum on 17.12.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that, she is the proprietor of a lodge by name Green Land, Thiruvananthapuram and is running the business of letting out of rooms for her livelihood.  The complainant had decided to install a new signage showing the name of the lodge at the entrance of the building.   The opposite party had placed a quotation for the installation of the signage initially on 24.09.2010 and thereafter on 06.11.2010.  The total cost for the same was agreed between the parties as Rs. 1,55,000/-.  As per the quotation and representation of the opposite parties, 3 year warranty was given to the complainant.  On the basis of the agreement the opposite party started the work and first payment of Rs. 45,000/-was received by him on 11.10.2010 vide cheque of IOB.  Thereafter the complainant was paid Rs. 20,000/- by cash on 09.11.2010, Rs. 60,000/- by cheque on 16.11.2010, Rs. 10,000/- by cash on 14.12.2010, another Rs. 10,000/- by cash on 20.12.2010 and the last payment of Rs. 10,000/- by cash on 24.12.2010.  Thus the total agreed amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- was received by the opposite party from the complainant.  Even after receiving the total cost for the signage the opposite parties did not complete the work and complainant file a complaint before DGP on 09.04.2011.  The same was forwarded before Assistant Commissioner of Police and the opposite party agreed to complete the work on 04.05.2011.  But after doing some work he left the place on 10.05.2011 without completing the same.  On 11.07.2011 it became completely faulty and this matter was informed with the opposite party by registered letters on 09.08.2011 and 06.09.2011.  But even after repeated complaints the opposite parties did nothing to rectify the defect and the signage remained completely useless.  Because of the reluctant attitude of the opposite parties the complainant contacted another agency by name royal Plastics.  They inspected the same and reported that the signage is completely defective and old and useless materials are used for instillation.  The complainant had to pay Rs. 12,136/- to Royal Plastics to effect repairs to make it partly functioning.  The opposite parties had received Rs. 1,55,000/- for the installation of the signage and they did not do anything to make it functioning.  The complainant had to further spend Rs. 12,136/- as additional expense as an attempt to make the signage functioning which also proved futile.  Since the opposite parties installed a defective signage the complainant sustained loss and mental agony.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective signage installed by them in the premises of the complainant as the entrance of Green Land Lodge, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram exhibiting the name of the lodge along with compensation for a tune of Rs. 50,000/- or in the alternative she be allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2,27,136/- along with costs and compensation. 

The opposite parties on receiving notice entered appearance and 1^st opposite party filed version.

The contentions raised by the opposite parties are that the complainant is not a consumer.  The work order was only for installing the neon signage.  The electric wiring at the customers end has to be done by the customer, so as to power the signage.  The opposite party demanded the complainant to provide suitable distribution board, proper earthing etc. to which the leads from the signage can be connected to a gate lamp, but the complainant has provided only a connection to a gate lamp.  The quotation for installation of signage was originally for Rs. 1,83,691.50 and opposite party offered 3 years comprehensive service and spares warranty.  But during the negotiations the total cost of the work was reduced to Rs. 1,55,000/- on condition that opposite party will not offer any warranty for signage.  This was orally agreed between parties and the work was commenced and completed on the basis of the said terms.  There was no latches or delay from the part of the opposite party in executing the work.  The delay caused due to the non-co-operation of the complainant and her staff.  It takes 2 months for the complainant to provide logo.  The opposite party was unnecessarily summoned to the office of high rank of police officials on the basis of false complaints made by the complainant.  The averment that the opposite party left the place on 10.05.2011 without completing the work is false.  The signage was in full working condition on installation and if at all there was an issue, it could only be a gas leakage which could be rectified by opposite party if he was allowed to do so.  The opposite party has used only standard materials and the allegation that the complainant spent Rs. 12136/- to effect repairs is false.  All the works were carried out at her premises by the opposite party in the presence of the complainant.  The complainant has not sustained any loss or mental agony and opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence complaint is only to be dismissed. 

The complainant filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P16.  The complainant was examined as PW1.  The opposite party filed affidavit and examined as DW1.  The commissioner was examined as DW2 and commission report marked as Ext. C1. 

Issues:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is eligible for any compensation as prayed for?

Issue (i):- The opposite party raised the question of maintainability in their version.  The question is regarding whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  Here the complainant availed the service of opposite parties for consideration and hence the complaint is maintainable.

Issues (ii) & (iii):- The case of the complainant is that the signage installed by the opposite parties in front of her lodge was defective and opposite party received the total agreed amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-.  Even after repeated complaints the opposite parties did nothing to rectify the defect and the signage remained completely useless.  Thus complainant had to pay Rs. 12,136/- to Royal Plastics to effect repairs to make it partly functioning.  The complainant pray for directing the opposite party to replace the defective signage installed by them along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- or realize an amount of Rs. 2,27,136/-.  The opposite parties did not deny the acceptance of Rs. 1,55,000/- but their contention was that they reduced the cost of work from Rs. 1,83,691.50 to Rs. 1,55,000/- and the amount was reduced on the condition that he will not offer any warranty for signage.  The opposite parties also deny the allegations of the complainant that the signage was defective and she had to spend Rs. 12,136/- as additional expenses for making it functional.  For this complainant produced Exts. P11, P12 and P13 and are marked without objection.  Expert commissioner was appointed on the application of the complainant and he filed Ext. C1 report.  He was also examined as DW2.  Both complainant and 1^st opposite party filed objection to the commission report and examined the commissioner.  In page 2 of commission report he stated that one Royal Plastics rectify the defects and necessary approval from Kerala State Electrical Inspectorate was not done before starting the work by the contractor.  At the time of examination also commissioner stated that the approval should be taken by the contractor and opposite party did not produce any document to show the same.  Anyway from the commission report and deposition of the commissioner it is clear that there is defect in the signage.  He also stated in his report that the quality of materials like transformers are not up to mark and requires replacement.  The commissioner also stated a rough cost of Rs. 45,000/- for repairing and make the signage working properly.  At the time of deposition he stated that he did not see many parts used by 1^st opposite party as it was replaced by M/s Royal Plastics.  Thus on going through the documents, commission report and depositions it is clear that there are defects in the signage board and the defects can be rectified according to the commissioner.  But it is not clear from the report the exact cost because the commissioner stated that rough costs is Rs. 45,000/-for rectifying the defects that is also in 2012.  From evidence and documents it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and are liable to compensate for the same.  But there is no evidence before this Forum for find out the exact amount for rectifying the defects.  It is also to be noted that the commissioner filed the report in 2012 and we cannot find out the condition of signage after 3 years.   Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are themselves liable to rectify the defects of the signage free of cost and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.  In case the opposite parties fail to rectify the defects and make the signage functioning satisfactorily we direct the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and take back the fittings.  The opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings before this Forum. 

In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the signage free of costs and make it functioning satisfactorily and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to refund the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in another one month’s time.  In that event, the opposite parties are entitled to take away the fittings at their risk and costs. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of December 2015.

       Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

jb                                                                     LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

C.C. No. 358/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Devi. C. Jayan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Original copy of quotation dated 24.09.2010

P2     - Original receipt No. 025 dated 11.10.2010 for Rs. 45,000/-

P3     - Original receipt No. 030 dated 09.11.2010 for Rs. 20,000/-

P4     - Original receipt No. 029 dated 16.11.2010 for Rs. 60,000/-

P5     - Original receipt No. 031 dated 14.12.2010 for Rs. 10,000/-

P6     - Original receipt No. 032 dated 20.12.2010 for Rs. 10,000/-

P7     - Original receipt No. 033 dated 24.12.2010 for Rs. 10,000/-

P8     - Copy of petition to DGP.

P9     - Copy of letter dated 09.08.2011.

P10   - Copy of letter dated 06.09.2011.

P11   - Original cash payment voucher dated 13.08.2011 for Rs. 1,000/-

P12   - Original cash invoice dated 07.09.2011 for Rs. 10,136/-.

P13   - Original cash payment voucher dated 03.11.2011 for Rs. 1,000/-

P14   - Original letter dated 11.01.2011 of M.D, Metro Scans & Laboratory.

P15   - Original letter from Managing Director of Hotel Prasanth.

P16   - Original quotation dated 06.11.2010 No. 1011-0188.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Manoj M.R

          DW2 - R. Rajan

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

  V     COURT EXHIBIT

          C1     - Commission Report

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb