Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint was filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- paid by complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to award Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant owns a house at Syamalanagar extension, Guntur comprising of Ground floor and first floor. As water was leaking from the 1^st floor of his house complainant gave contract to opposite party for water proofing work and the opposite party undertook the said contract and accordingly opposite party carried out his work and received Rs.15,000/- on 05-01-11 and Rs.7,000/- on 18-01-11.  Inspite of water proofing work carried out by the opposite party to the 1^st floor of the complainant building water is still leaking from the 1^st floor.  The complainant informed the same to the opposite party through his letters dated 21-02-11, 14-05-11, 12-10-11, 18-10-11,     27-10-11 and 07-11-11 sent by registered post and requested the opposite party to rectify the defect. But the opposite party did not choose to visit the complainant building or even respond to the complainant to rectify the problem of leaking water from the 1^st floor of the complainant building.  As a result of the same the inmates of the complainant’s house are facing much inconvenience.  Finally the complainant got issued legal notice dated 19-12-11 to the opposite party requiring him to rectify the problem of leakage.  Inspite of receipt of the said legal notice opposite party did not choose to rectify the problem and kept quite.  Due to the attitude and behaviour of the opposite party, the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint.     

3.      Opposite party filed its version which is in brief is as follows:

Most of the allegations mentioned in the complainant are false, untrue and incorrect.  The complaint is not maintainable under Law.  The opposite party done the leakage work, accordingly an agreement entered with the opposite party by the complainant.  The opposite party did the work with utmost care and caution and did the same in good manner.  There are no leaks in the 1^st floor of the complainant.  After the completion of work done by opposite party, opposite party visited the premises of the complainant at the request of the complainant and complainant satisfied with the work done by opposite party.  It is absolutely false that there was leakage in the 1^st floor of the complainant.  The work was done to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party and extract money from him. If there are any leaks in the 1^st floor in the work done by the opposite party the opposite party is ready to rectify the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.            

4.     In support of their case complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits, reiterating the same. 

5.      On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-14 are marked.  On documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.

6.      Now the points that arise for consideration are:

        1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

             opposite party?

        2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.      POINT NO.1:  The case of the complainant is that he own a house at Guntur comprising of 1^st floor and ground floor, that as there was leakage from the 1^st floor to the ground floor he engaged opposite party for rectifying the water proofing work for which he has paid Rs.22,000/- in all to the opposite party, that the opposite party has under taken the said water proofing work, that inspite of the work done by the opposite party there was leakage from the 1^st floor of the building for which he addressed the number of letters from 21-02-11 onwards under registered post and finally got issued a legal notice dated  19-12-11, but inspite of receipt of same opposite party failed to visit the house of the complainant and rectify the defect or to give a reply and kept quite, thus there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 

8.      The case of opposite party is that as per the agreement entered with the complainant the opposite party has attended the leakage work with utmost care and caution to the satisfaction of the complainant and that there was no leakage to 1^st floor, that the complainant has filed the complaint only to harass the opposite party and to extract the money and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is ready to rectify the leaks if any in the work done by him. 

9.      It is not in dispute the complainant has engaged opposite party to carryout water proofing work for his 1^st floor of the building as there is leakage of water from 1^st floor to the ground floor.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.22,000/- in all to the opposite party under Ex.A-2 and A-3 receipts for the work carried out by the opposite party.  The opposite party entered an agreement with complainant under Ex.A-1.  According to Ex.A-1 the material for the work has to be supplied by the complainant and opposite party has to execute the work for a sum of Rs.22,000/-.Accordingly on completion of the work the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- on 05-01-11 under Ex.A-2 and Rs.7,000/- on 18-01-11 under Ex.A-3 to the opposite party.  Inspite of the waterproofing work done by the opposite party to the complainant’s 1^st floor of the building as there was leakage of water from the complainant’s building, the complainant addressed letters to the opposite party by registered post under         Exs.A-4 to A-7, A-10 and A-14 requesting the opposite party to rectify the leakage problem as per clause 8 of the agreement.  But inspite of receipt of the said letters as opposite party failed to comply the request of the complainant, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 13-12-11 under Ex.A-12 and the same was received by the opposite party on 20-12-11 under Ex.A-13 acknowledgement.  The clause 8 of the agreement Ex.A-1 is as follows : 

“we stand guarantee service for 5 years for our WPC provided nobody tampers”

Thus the opposite party have given guarantee for his service for 5 years. As already stated above inspite of addressing letters under Exs.A-4 to A-7, A-10 and A-14 and inspite of issuance of legal notice under Ex.A-13, even though the opposite party has received the same, he failed to visit the building of the complainant, failed to give a reply even and also failed to comply the request of the complainant and kept quite. It is not the case of the opposite party that the work done by him was tampered by anybody. The opposite party simply mentioned in his version that he is ready to rectify the defects if any but did not choose to visit the house of the complainant even after filing the complaint before this Forum to find out the defects.  If really he intends to rectify the defects he would have visited the house of the complainant.  But he did not do so.

During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party is ready to rectify the defects and issued notice to the counsel for the complainant stating that “Please inform the date and time, as opposite party ready to visit premises of the complainant” The said notice was endorsed by the counsel for the complainant as follows:

“I am herewith furnishing the cell No.i.e.9849086789 of the complainant.  The opposite party by sending a message to the complainant, can ascertain the date and time of presence of the complainant and can visit the building in question after such ascertainment”.

The said notice was filed before this Forum.  Even after this endorsement the opposite party failed to visit the house of complainant.  The said attitude of opposite party shows that he is not really intends to rectify the defects.   

 The said attitude of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore we find deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, as he failed to comply the request of the complainant as per the agreement under Ex.A-1. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainant. 

10.    POINT NO. 2   :-  The complainant claimed refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party i.e. Rs.22,000/- as the opposite party failed to comply the request of the opposite party as per the agreement Ex.A-1 the opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- paid by the complainant. 

The complainant further claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The amount claimed by the complainant towards compensation is too high and is imaginary and is not substantiated by any evidence. The opposite party also claimed an amount of Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint which is also too high and imaginary.  Therefore we feel that directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- paid by complainant, and awarding Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

11.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, as indicated below:

1. Opposite party is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant
2. Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him.
3. Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards the costs of the complaint.

The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amounts awarded in item Nos. 1 & 2 will carry interest @9% p.a. till the date of realization.   

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite Parties  : NIL                                         

 PRESIDENT