KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 269/2010
JUDGMENT DATED : 8.12.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Sarasan @ Pappa,
Thekkenam Nirappil House,
Neervaram.P.O.,
Wayanad District
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. A. Abdulla Sait & B.R. Syam)
Vs.
RESPONDENT
P.J. Baby,
W/o Babu,
Edaparambil House,
Neervaram P.O.,
Wayanad District.
(Rep. by Adv.Sri. P.S. Harikumar)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Vayanad in C.C. No. 17/2009 dated. 29.1.2010. The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below under the direction that the opposite party is directed to give the complainant Rs. 50,000/- towards rectification of the construction of house along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- The opposite party is also directed to pay interest @ 9% from the date of the filing of this complainant till the date of payment to thecomplainant. The respondent is the opposite party.
In short, the complainant entrusted the opposite party to construct the work of her house and the opposite party is much closed to the husband of the complainant. After the completion of the house, the roof of the house from the very beginning it is found to be wet and leaking. The complainant alleged that she spend nearly about 8,00,000/- for the entire construction of the house. She borrowed this amount from the bank and other individuals. In this account she paid 6,000/- rupees as the interest. The opposite party did not attend any request of the complainant to rectify the damp and leaking condition of the roof of house. The construction works was carried down by the opposite party in terms of piece rate. The opposite party all together received Rs. 1,00,825/- from the complainant towards wages the except of amount from the complainant is recorded in the diary of the complainant. The carpentry work was done by the brother of the opposite party. Hence the complaint directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- is the amount required for the rectification work and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite party appeared and conducted in their version that the alleged defect of the construction of the work did not carry out by the opposite party. He said that he is only a carpenter and he knows only the carpentry work alone. He had done the entire carpentry works in the house of the complainant. And there is a due for the payment of charge of the carpentry works done by the opposite party. He demanded it on several occasions. But it was not paid so far. He prayed for dismissal of the complainant. The Forum below raised two points for the consideration:
1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
Party in the construction of the house.
2) Relief and costs.
The evidence consist of the oral evidence of the complainant (PW1) and examined a consulting engineer as Pw2 and an agriculturist who examined as Pw3 and the Commissioner was examined as CW1 and marked Exts. A1 to A4 and the Commission Report was also marked as Ext. C1 for the opposite party, a copy of the certificate only marked as Ext. B1.
On the strength of the above evidence the Forum below take a view that there is a deficiency in service conducted by the opposite party and the Forum below allowed the complainant by answering all the points raised for consideration. The Forum below given ample opportunities to both sides to adduce their own evidence and heard both sides in detail.
On the other side this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, Counsels for both appellants and respondents are present and argued their own respective cases respectively. The Counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of Appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The Forum below did not appreciate the version and the Ext. B1 documents. He submitted that there is no contract between the complainant and the opposite party only an oral agreement. And the opposite party is only a carpenter. He did not know the technical knowledge about the concreting and other technical side of the construction of the house. But the Counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that as per the evidence adduced by the complainant in the Forum below, the opposite party committed the deficiency in service in his part, the deposition of the commissioner and his report are sufficient and more to prove that the opposite party already undertaken the construction work of the complainant and he finished it and also seen that the leak of the roof and other problems occurred due to the deficiency of the work done by him. The counsel for the appellant submitted that he is only a carpenter. We don’t know how the highest dignified traditional and heritage craftsmanship of a profession degraded simply by the counsel for the appellant. He belong to Viswakarma and his ancestor belongs to” Traditional Legency”, the great father of the Vasthu, “Perunthachan”. We are not seeing any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly accordance with the law and evidence. We, this Commission bound to protect the interest of a woman consumer like this complainant.
In the result this appeal is dismissed. Both parties are direct to suffer their own respective dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
M. V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
