IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 32/2021 (filed on 08-02-2021)
Petitioner : Jom Cyriac,
S/o. Thomas,
Vaithara House,
Kumarakom P.O.
Kottayam – 686563.
(Adv. P.J. Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Mujeeb Rahman,
Proprietor,
Home Tech Enterprises,
Poovathinkal Panjal, Attur,
Thrissur – 680583.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant entered in to an agreement with the opposite party to construct the aluminium fabrication wall trope works for his residential building as per the quotation and drawing dated 27.01.2020.The period of construction is 15 days from the date of quotation. On the same day the complainant has given an amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance through NEFT to the opposite party’s bank account bearing no 00000067056745088 of South Indian Bank, Palakkadu branch. The opposite party abandoned the said contract work without any reason .Though complainant insisted to complete the work with the extension of further time, the opposite party was not viable. Later the complainant had to do the work with someone else on an escalated cost. On repeated demands, the opposite party repaid only 10,000/-. A balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is till due. The act of the opposite party caused much inconveniences to the complainant. So he issued a lawyers notice on 23.10.2020 which was accepted by the opposite party on 28.10.2020.Though he received the notice, he did not care either to reply or to return the money. The opposite party promised his service on receipt of consideration, so the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. Hence the abstinence of the opposite party from the promised agreement is a deficiency in service and hence this complaint is filed for the refund of the balance amount and compensation.
The opposite party though received intimation of the notice sent from this
Commission, did not care to appear before this Commission or file version and
hence set ex parte.
The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit along with exhibits A1 to A5.
Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, we would like to frame the following issues.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs?
From the pleadings it is found that the complainant has entered into an agreement for the aluminium fabrication work at his home with the opposite party on payment of an advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 the quotation issued by Mujeeb Rahman, for Home Tech Enterprises, Aluminium Modular kitchen in which the total amount is shown as Rs.2,00,000/- and unit price is 50,000/- out of 4 units. As A1 document is unchallenged, the same proves that there was a promise from the opposite party to do aluminium work for the complainant. Exhibits A2 is the transaction details of the advance amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant sent legal notice exhibit A3 but though the same was received by the opposite party, he did not send a reply or return the money. Thus from the evidence on record, we infer that there was an express contract between the complainant and the opposite party to do the aluminium fabrication work for the complainant by the opposite party within 10 to 15 days. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had absolved from the agreement and neither did the work nor repaid the amount. The opposite party though received the notice, did not care to challenge the complaint by filing contrary evidence. So we find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and is liable to repay the amount with compensation.
Thus the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return the amount of Rs.40,000/- along with an interest at 6% p a from the date of receipt 27.10.20 till the date of realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the amount of compensation shall carry 9% interest from the date or order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of quotation issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of NEFT payment message details
A3 – Lawyers notice dtd.23-10-2010 issued to the opposite party
A4 – Postal acknowledgement card
A5 – Postal receipt
By Order
Assistant Registrar
