Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 198. According to the complainant, he is 80 years old and a senior citizen and stay at 692, Chinoy Building, Dadar, Mumbai. There was leakage in the balcony roof from terrace therefore he had engaged the services of the opponent and paid Rs.25,000/- to him. The opponent gave guarantee for ten years period. The complainant made the payment by cheque of Rs.25,000/- for which the opponent issued acknowledgement dated 12th November, 2008. On the said receipt, he had given guarantee of work for the period of ten years. During rainy season, leakage started. Therefore, he had requested the O.P. to correct it but the O.P. did not take any care. Thereafter, there was correspondence with the O.P. but the O.P. did not take care. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint.
2) In spite of service, the O.P. remained absent. Therefore, ex parte order was passed against him. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence and relied upon the copies of documents.
3) According to the complainant, there was leakage in his balcony therefore he gave contract to the opponent. The opponent received payment of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant and issued the acknowledgement. The opponent gave guarantee of work for ten years. The complainant has produced the copy of payment receipt along with guarantee given by the opponent. The same is not challenged by the opponent. Considering the documents on record, it is clear that the opponent agreed to do the work along with guarantee. As there was leakage, the complainant requested to correct it but the opponent refused to correct it. The complainant has filed this complaint and copy of it was served on the opponent. The opponent remained absent. He has not challenged the contents of the complaint. The averments of the complaint are supported by the documentary evidence. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service. The opponent received payment of Rs.25,000/- but did not carry out the work as per guarantee given by him. Therefore, the opponent is liable to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-. In spite of several requests, the O.P. failed to stop the leakage thereby the complainant suffered mental harassment. The complainant is a senior citizen. He has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment. We think it just to allow compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is also entitled for cost of this proceeding Rs.5,000/-. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is allowed.
2) The O.P. is directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant along with at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15th October, 2012 till realization.
3) The O.P. is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand Only) for mental agony and cost of proceeding Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant.
4) The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month.
5) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced dated 14th March, 2014
