<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2572/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Sampath,S/o E.Rangachariar,Aged about 74 years,Resident at 11th Cross,4th Main Road,Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560003.Advocate – Sri.Harish Kumar M.SV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.N.S.Murthy,Proprietor of Shakti Ploy Technologies,No.3, Sixth Parallel Road,Chamarajpet,Bangalore – 560018.Advocate – Sri.M.S.Krishna Murthy<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.85,090/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP for the renovation of his property bearing No.113/1 situated at 11th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. OP submitted the total estimation for the repairs and the renovation on 10.02.2006 to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/-. The finalized proposal sent by OP on 19.04.2006 is for Rs.6,04,680/-. Complainant accepted the proposal and paid Rs.3,18,000/-. Unfortunately OP did not carry out the renovation and repair works immediately. On repeated insistence he attended to the said renovation and the total work carried out is only of worth Rs.2,32,910/-. OP left the work in the middle. Due to the defect in the said renovation there was a water leakage, air cracks in the wall etc. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to attend to the said defects went in futile. Under the circumstances complainant is forced to demand the OP to refund Rs.85,090/- unspent amount towards the renovation but it went in vain. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP he attended to all the renovation work in a good faith. Complainant accepted the terms of payment, which is a progressive payment. As promised complainant has not made payment of the said amount. Actually OP spent more than Rs.5,80,000/- towards the renovation and not Rs.2,32,910/- as alleged by the complainant. Complainant paid only Rs.2,75,500/- and not Rs.3,18,000/-. When OP demanded the complainant to make payment of the other amount spent towards renovation he has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. OP has suitably replied the legal notice. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. OP is neither liable to pay compensation nor liable to refund the amount of Rs.85,090/- as claimed. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. On the plain reading of the complaint, complainant is not very much sure with regard to the total estimation he accepted which is proposed by the OP towards renovation, repairs and construction of his so called building. Para.5 of the complaint shows that an earlier estimation was given for Rs.3,40,000/- on 10.02.2006 by OP then the finalized proposal dated 19.04.2006 was for a total estimation of Rs.6,04,680/-. If the complainant accepted the said final proposal then he is liable to pay said amount towards renovation whereas he claims that he has paid only Rs.3,18,000/-. So the remaining amount is not paid by the complainant. Further complainant take the strange contention that OP attended to the work of worth only Rs.2,32,910/-. What is the basis for this conclusion is not known. Complainant has not appointed the commissioner to assess the total work attended by the OP and the cost of the said work. So in absence of an opinion from an expert in the field the bare and vague allegations of the complainant rather alone can’t be believed.<br /> <br /> 7. OP has taken up with a specific defence contending that he is a close friend of the complainant and in order to oblige the complainant with regard to the said renovation work he spent a lot of his own believing the progressive payment will be made by the complainant in due course of time. According to OP he has completed the work of worth Rs.5,80,000/- and not of Rs.2,32,910/-. According to OP complainant has paid only Rs.2,75,500/- not Rs.3,18,000/- as alleged. Complainant has failed to establish the fact of payment of Rs.3,18,000/-. So when OP completed the work worth of Rs.5,80,000/- and if the complainant has paid only Rs.2,75,500/- then naturally the complainant is the defaulter. A defaulter can’t allege the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. OP has further contended that in order to ascertain the actual work done, quantum of work completed by him OP and also the cost of the work done a commissioner be appointed. Though complainant know of the said defence of OP he has not taken steps to get appointed a technically qualified person an Engineer in the field to substantiate his allegations. So non taking of such steps leads us to draw an inference that the defence set out by the OP appears to be genuine. On the other hand complainant has failed to substantiate his so called complaint averments and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The approach of the complainant does not appear to be as fair and honest. Hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />