D.O.F:14/01/2021
D.O.O:06/06/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.11/2021
Dated this, the 06th day of June 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Capt. K.P Prabhakaran Nair (Retd)
Sarovaram, Padinjattom Kozhuval : Complainant
P.O Nileshwar, Kasaragod Dist -671314
And
Mr. Charly Thomas
Mandiyott Road
Kovapally, Near Bus Stand,
Kanhangad P.O : Opposite Party
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party in waterproof work at the terrace of his house. The facts of the case in brief is that the opposite party , who was running “Jewel Enterprises water proofing Solutions” agreed to cure the leakage at the terrace of complainant’s house for Rs.15,000/-and accordingly, the opposite party had done the water proofing work by receiving Rs.15,000/- on 17.04.2018. The opposite party had issued a document namely, warranty on water proofing application of 10 years warranty on the said work as per which he indemnified and agreed to save the harm to be caused to waterproofing work due to any defect in workmanship and hereby guarantee to repair the defective works done by them without claiming extra cost.
But the terrace again started to leak during heavy rain and there appeared a rupture of one meter length at the repaired spot. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party over his given phone number but the opposite party never got connected. Somehow the complainant could report matter to the opposite party at last and on 12.03.2020 the opposite party visited the site and agreed to solve the problem within 3 days, but never solved the problem. Since the opposite party did not care to even to attend the phone calls, there after the complainant was constrained to install top roofing sheets over the terrace spending Rs.1, 30,000/- to protect his house. The Complainant sent Regd. notice to the opposite party demanding compensation for which the opposite party sends a false reply. The act of opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice due to which the Complainant suffered heavy loss and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to return Rs.15,000/- the amount paid for the water proofing work along with Rs.1,30,000/- towards the cost of top roofing and a compensation of Rs.55,000/- and costs.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed written Version. As per the version of the Opposite Party, the complaint is false and as such against the truth. .The opposite party admitted that they have done the waterproofing work at a small point on the terrace of the complainant’s house. It is denied that there is complaint of leakage at the spot of work done by the opposite party. It is submitted that the terrace is a wide area and the leakage might have occurred at some other spot .The complainant installed the top roofing sheets only for his convenience and protection of his house and the opposite party is not liable to pay the cost of that work. The OP has done his work with earnest care and there is no leakage at that site. The amount of Rs.15,000/-charged from the complainant includes labour charge and cost of the materials.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A1 to Ext. A 6 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the warranty on water proofing application. Ext - A 2 is the Bill for Rs.1,30,000/- for top roofing sheet Ext. A3 is the copy of Regd. Notice dated 15-02-2017 issued to the Opposite Party ,Ext A4 is the postal acknowledgement card. Ext. A 5 is the Photograph of Terrace. Ext. A 6 is the call register by which the complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party .The complainant PW 1 was not cross examined in spite of chances given for that. The Opposite party adduced no oral evidence. No document produced.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party agreed to cure the leakage at the terrace of his house for Rs.15,000/-and accordingly, the opposite party had done the water proofing work by receiving Rs.15,000/-. But the terrace again started to leak during heavy rain and there appeared a rupture of one meter length at the repaired spot. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party over his given phone number the Opposite Party never got connected. Somehow the complainant could report matter to the opposite party at last and on 12.03.2020 the opposite party visited the site and agreed to solve the problem within 3 days, but never solve the problem.
It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party had issued a warranty card namely, warranty on water proofing application of 10 years on the said work, as per which he indemnified and agreed to save the harm to be caused to waterproofing work due to any defect in workmanship and hereby guarantee to repair the defective works done by them without claiming extra cost. But the Opposite Party did not keep his promise here.
Here the complainant state that the opposite party visited the spot and found the leakage and promised that he would solve the problem within 3 days. But did not fulfilled that promise. Not providing necessary service in spite of warranty promise is service deficiency and negligence.
Even though the opposite party denied that there is complaint of leakage at the spot of work done by him and submitted that the terrace is a wide area and the leakage might have occurred at some other spot, he did not prove his case by adducing reliable evidence. He did not even care to cross examine the PW1.
Therefore considering circumstances and available evidence in this case and in the absence of any rebuttal, evidence this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and suffering apart from monetary loss.
Here the complainant’s case is that the opposite party to be directed to return Rs.15,000/- the amount paid for the water proofing work and also, since the Opposite Party did not care to even to attend the phone calls, the complainant was constrained to install top roofing sheets over the terrace spending Rs.1,30,000/- to protect his house and that amount to be recovered from the opposite party.
Here the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party was only to do waterproof work at a particular area for Rs.15,000/-and that was done by the opposite party by receiving the amount of Rs.15,000/- There after the work done by the opposite party was found to be defective and due to that the complainant suffered mental agony and loss, since the opposite party did not care to cure the defect as per the Warranty . The installing of top roofing sheets over the terrace spending Rs.1,30,000/- was not because of the opposite party alone . It was for the convenience of the complainant and overall protection of his house. It cannot be attributed to the service deficiency of the opposite party.
The Opposite Party is liable to return the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant received by him for the defective waterproofing work along with compensation for the mental agony and sufferings due to the service deficiency and negligence. The Complainant states that he had sustained a damage of Rs.55,000/- due to the mental agony and sufferings but there is no reliable data for that . The commission is of the view that Rs. 5,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation in this case.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with 8% interest per annum from 14.01.2021, the date of complaint till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only), towards the costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Warranty on waterproofing Application
A2- Bill Rs. 1,30,000/-
A3- Copy of registered notice
A4- Postal Acknowledgment Card
A5- Photograph of terrace
A6- Call register
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
