Date of filing : 30-01-2010 Date of order : 06-04-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 25/2010 Dated this, the 6th day of April 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Sreelatha.M.K, President, Kasaragod Social Services Society (Regd), } Complainant Naikap, Ednad Po,Kumbla, Kasaragod Taluk and District. (In Person) Praveen, Proprietor, Praveen Engineering Works, } Opposite party Muttam Gate, Bandiyod, Kumbla (Via), Kasaragod Taluk. (Exparte) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complaint in nutshell is as follows: Complainant Sreelatha the President of the Kasaragod Social Service Society and the Supervisor of society Mr.Jayakumar entrusted the work of an Iron gate with opposite party and paid Rs.16,000/-(Sixteen thousand only) as advance to him on 19-12-2009. The total amount fixed for the Iron gate was Rs.21,000/-. But opposite party failed to deliver the Iron gate within 7 days as agreed inspite of repeated approaches for the Iron gate. Though a lawyer notice was caused opposite party neither sent a reply nor returned the advance amount he received. Hence the complaint. 2. Notice to opposite party returned as unclaimed since the opposite party failed to collect it from the postal authority even after receipt of intimation about the registered notice. Hence it is presumed that notice is served on opposite party. Hence opposite party is set exparte. 3. Complainant adduced evidence as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked. Heard the complainant. Documents perused. 4. Complainant as PW1 testified that she advanced a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards the construction of an Iron gate and opposite party assured to deliver the gate within 35 days since he failed to deliver the gate she caused the Ext.A2 lawyer notice. Though opposite party received the notice he failed to reply to the notice or refund the amount. Therefore she prays for an order for the refund of money with compensation. 5. Ext.A1, the voucher of the society, which the complainant represents, shows that the society had advanced a sum of Rs.16,000/- to opposite party for the construction of the gate. The opposite party had no explanation to Ext.A2 lawyer notice also. The silence of opposite party amounts to admission. The deficient nature of service of opposite party is adequately proved. Opposite party is therefore liable to compensate the complainant. The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.16,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment along with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite party shall be liable for the consequences as envisaged under Sec. 25& 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 19-10-09 Debit slip A2. 28-11-2009 Copy of lawyer notice. A3. Postal acknowledgement card PW1. Sreelatha.S. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
