SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The Complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of OP
The complainant in brief
The complainant is a lady aged 65 years constructed a double storeyed house. The complainant entrusted the OP to make and install the grill on the back side of said house and also on the roof of stair case. The OP made complainant to believe that they will use good quality iron bars and sheets and will complete the work within one week and demanded Rs.85,000/-. On 15/2/2018, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to OP but OP did not start their work. Even without starting work on 21/3/2018, OP obtained Rs.60,000/- from complainant. The OP without completion of their work, they left the house of complainant. Due to the incompletion of work and usage of low quality materials the complainant and her daughter was not in a position to live in the house without fear. Even after the payment of full amount as demanded by OP, the work entrusted by complainant left incomplete. Moreover, OP is demanding Rs.50,000/- more to complete the work. Because of this, complainant lodged complaint before police station and thereafter the commission, to get relief against the hardship caused due to the deficiency in service practiced by OP.
After filing the complaint, the commission has sent notice to OP and the OP entered appearance before the commission and filed his version accordingly.
Version of OP in brief:
The OP denied the entire averment made by complainant. The OP contacted that, they demand only Rs.49,000/-, to complete the work of grill and roofing of staircase. The material used by OP is on the demand of complainant. The complainant demanded to choose material on low cost. On the basis of said estimate complainant paid Rs.20,000/- as advance and thereafter Rs.5000/- and Rs.500/-. The complainant requested to exclude the small grill work at front part of the house and OP demanded balance amount after deducting excluded work is Rs.43,645/-. After the completion of work complainant gave Rs.7500/- to OP and told that she will pay Rs.10,645/- after few days. The OP had completed their work within 8 days and Rs.10645/- left unpaid by complainant. The complainant filed a false complaint before police station and the authorities interfered and inspected the work done by OP and after completion of investigation police authorities demanded complainant to pay the balance amount for the work done by OP. Because of this , complainant filed false and frivolous complaint before the commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of OP.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP?
- Whether there is any compensation & cost to the complainant?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence for both parties. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. No document produced from the side of complainant. No oral and documentary evidence from the side of OP. Complainant filed their argument note before the commission.
Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.
Issue No.1
The Commission called evidence from the parties to the complaint. No documents produced by complainant and OP to peruse. The complainant stated, during cross examination that there is only oral contract between complainant and OP regarding the quality of materials to be used and there is no evidence before the commission regarding the payment of Rs.85,000/- to OP except a mere statement in complaint and chief affidavit of complainant. The OP raised a dispute regarding the payment and quality of materials used. According to the complaint, complainant entrusted work with OP by fixing rate and made an averment that she paid Rs.85,000/-, but OP contended that their contract was fixed for Rs.43645/-. During the cross examination complainant deposed that there is only oral contract regarding the quality of materials to be used and no receipt or estimate copy produced to peruse by commission. Hence the dispute with regard to the payment of money cannot be tackled. Furthermore, the averment regarding the quality of materials and non completion of work by OP made by complainant is not proved before the commission by not taking any steps to appoint expert or any advocate commission to inspect the property and find the deficiency in service from the part of OP. There is only a mere statement before the commission, made by complainant regarding the deficiency in service. Due to the lack of available evidences to prove the deficiency in service from the part of OP. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP’s. Hence issue No.1 is answered against the complainant.
Issue No.2:
Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party, and there is no direct evidence to prove the payment of amount and quality of the materials used, and hence complainant is not entitled to get compensation.
Hence the commission came into a conclusion that complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cost
PW1-A Vilasini- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
