IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2010 C.C.No.147/02 1. Palangandan Narayanan Nair,(dead) S/o Kunhankutty, Palangadan House, Near U.P.School Kannapuram, : Complainants Mottammal – 670 604. 2. Karthyayani, aged 40 years W/o.P.Narayanan Nair, Kannapuram Amsom Desom, Mottammal,Kannur. 3. Smt.P.Omana, D/o.late P.Narayanan Nair 4. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, S/o. late P.Narayanan Nair 5. Smt.P.Ambika, D/o. late P.Narayanan Nair 6. Sri.P.Ganesan, S/o. late P.Narayanan Nair Vs. 1. Natarajan.P.V., S/o. Puthenveettil Narayanan, Puthenveettil House,P.O.Cheleri, Kannadiparamba – 670 331. : Opposite Parties 2. Manoharan.C., S/o. Govindan Nair, P.O.Cheleri, Kannadiparamba – 670 604. O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects by removing the laterite and re-laying them by plugging holes and gaps without giving room for side water to enter and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.15,000/-, to refund Rs.35,000/- spent by the Complainant and cost. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are as follows: The Complainant entrusted 1st Opposite Party the work of digging a well in the month of May 1999. 2nd Opposite Party assisted and supervised the work along with 4 other workers. The well was dug to a depth of 20 Kol (approximately 47 feet). The upper loose mud for 5 kol was fastened using laterite. All the materials laterate, cement etc. was arranged by the Complainant at his cost. The work was completed by 10th June 2000. The Complainant paid Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to the Opposite Parties. Besides the Complainant has spent Rs.15,000/- for laterite stones and cement etc. He spent a total amount of Rs.34,000/-. Noticing the water muddy and China clay white and immediately informed the Opposite Parties. Since the monsoon had already started they pleaded their inability to do anything then. In December 2001 Opposite Parties were again approached. They promised to look into the matter. In May 2001 they removed the mud accumulated at the bottom and promised to rectify other defects but never turned up. The Complainant therefore sought the opinion of others experienced in the field and understood that the faulty work done by the Opposite Parties had been the reason for the unclean water. They have properly filed the gaps while laying the laterate, which caused this water seeps from the sides which bring China clay mud. Complainant approached Opposite Parties on several time to rectify the defect but in vain. Moreover, due to the unsafe construction of the well Complainant suspect that it may also affect the strength of house building especially the bath room. Apart from the loss of money Complainant put to great mental agony and inconvenience on the part of Opposite Party. They are liable for the consequences. Hence this Complainant. Pursuant to the notice 2nd Opposite Party entered appearance. 1st Opposite Party remained absent. No version filed on the side of the Opposite Parties. The evidence consists of affidavits filed by both the sides by way of evidence and oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and CW1 and CW2. Admittedly the Complainant entrusted the work of digging well to 1st Opposite Party. 2nd Opposite Party assisted and supervised the work. After the work was over Complainant notice the water muddy and China clay white. Opposite Parties promised to look into the matter. They have arranged removal of mud accumulated at the bottom and promised to rectify other faults. Complainant made a payment of Rs.1000/- also. But the Opposite Party did not turn up thereafter for the rectification of other defects even though Complainant met them on several time requesting to carry out the defects. The Complainant is not able to use the well water for more than 6 months in the year. The Complainant is mentally worried for fear of danger to his house building that may occur due to unsafe construction of the well. 2nd Opposite party in his chief affidavit detailed his case. Though he has admitted that he was ready to rectify the defect, that was only on the consideration that the Complainant was his relative. Several time he attempted for the rectification work but Complainant did not allow him to do the work. He further states in his affidavit that there is no deficiency on his part in the construction work of the well. If there was any defect the construction itself would have been collapsed long before. Small gap in between the laterite stone are quite common in usual case. He also states that personal enmity is the real reason for the case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Ext. C1 and C2 are commission reports. Ext.C1 and C2 are specifically pointed out that the joint of the laterite measure is not perfectly done. But C1 pointed out that there are 30 small gaps in between the stones at the place of 6 steps. Ext.C2 also agree with opinion that the joint of the laterite masonry is not perfectly done. Ext.C1 pointed out that there are 30 small gaps in between the stones at the place of 6 steps. Ext.C2 also agrees with opinion that the joint of the laterite masonry is not perfectly done due to which there are gaps between stones. He has also found that due to the gap the soil along with the infiltrated water caused turbidity to the water in the well and settled down. On going through the evidence adduced by PW1, DW1 and Ext. C1 and C2 we are of opinion that there are certain defects in the construction of the well.. Hence the Opposite Parties are liable to rectify the defects. The approximate cost required for the defects estimated by the second commission is Rs.18,000/-. The first commissioner is also of opinion that it is possible to rectify the defect by repair work. Taking into account the estimate of the second commissioner and that of the opinion of the first commissioner we are of opinion that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be sufficient to rectify the defects. Thus the Opposite Parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings. In the result, the Complainant is allowed directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings within one month of the receipt of this order , failing which the Complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for either side: Nil Exhibits for the court C1.Commissin report submitted by M.M.Deepa C2.Commission report submitted by K.C.Damodaran Witness examined for the complainant PW1.P.Ganeshan Witness examined for the opposite parties DW1.Manoharan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
