IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 70/2019 (filed on 15/05/2019)

Petitioners                                  :       Biju Kuriakose,

                                                          S/o. Chacko Kuriakose,

                                                          Ummacheril House,

                                                          Kurichi Village, Kottayam.

                                                          (Adv. Rajan K. Nair)

                                                                   Vs.     

Opposite Party                           :       Mikesh,

                                                          Koyipparambil,

                                                          Sachivothamapuram P.O.

                                                          Kottayam – 686 532.

O R D E R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          The case of the complainant is as follows.

          The opposite party is a painter and rendered his service to the complainant after receiving consideration from the complainant.  The complainant had entrusted the opposite party to the painting works of his newly constructed residential building.  Due to the inadequacy and negligence of the opposite party, he had executed his work mixing the emulsion paint with some primer and thereby caused imperfection and changes in the colour and clarity of the complainant’s house.  Due to the imperfection of the works done by the opposite parties the portion of the building on which the putty was applied peeled off.                       It is further alleged in the complaint that the opposite party has used the polish which was brought by the complainant for his house to the house of the opposite party.  Due to the imperfection and in adequacy in the work done and service rendered by the opposite party, the complainant had suffered much financial loss and hardship.  Hence this complaint is filed praying an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

          Though the notice was served to the opposite party, he did not care to appear before the Commission or conduct his case.

          Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.

          On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would consider the following points.

1. The complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite party?
2. If so, what are reliefs?

     For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.

Point No.1 and 2.

     The specific case of the complainant is that he had entrusted the opposite party the painting work of newly constructed residential house.  It is further averred in the proof affidavit that due to the inadequacy and negligence in the work done by the opposite party, the opposite party had applied the paints which are brought by the complainant mixed with the cement primer and thereby caused change in the colour and clarity of the paint.  It is further averred that the polish which were brought by the complainant was replaced by the opposite party and used a substandard quality polish for the polishing work and thereby caused imperfection in the work.  Though the complainant averred in the complaint that he had entrusted the work to the opposite party he failed to adduce any evidence to show that there was any agreement with the complainant and the opposite party for carrying out the painting works.  Moreover the complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove that he had paid any amount to the opposite party for the service allegedly rendered by the opposite party to the complainant. The only evidence which were produced before us Ext.A1 notice and ext.A2 photograph of the house.  It is pertinent to note that neither in the complaint, nor in Ext.A1 lawyers notice, the complainant did not disclose the amount which was paid by complainant the to the opposite party as the consideration for the service rendered to him.  Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant had failed to prove that he is a consumer of the opposite party as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  In this circumstance, we are of the opinion that complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 30^th day of September, 2021.

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member                Sd/-

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

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  :  Copy of lawyers notice dtd.10-10-17

A2  :  Photograph of house

A3  :  Postal AD card.

                                                                                           By Order

                                                                               Senior Superintendent