. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.No.113/2006
T.P.Dayanandan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Puthiyadath Vijayan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. T.P.Dayanandan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Puthiyadath Vijayan
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mini.P.M
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing : 10-10-2006 Date of Order : 30-06-2008 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.113/06 Dated this, the 30th day of June 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.P.Dyanandan, S/o.Late T.Chathu Master, } Complainant R/at South Trikarpur, Elambachi.Po, Hosdurg Taluk. Puthiyadath Vijayan, S/o.Late Vadakkan Govindan, } Opposite party R/at South Trikarpur, Elambachi.Po, Hosdurg Taluk O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The gist of the complaint is that the complainant entrusted with opposite party, the construction work of a new bath room after demolition of an old shed attached to his house. But opposite party has not finished the work even though he received Rs.1800/- in excess to the work he had done. Therefore complainant has compelled to do the work engaging other workers and thereby sustained loss. Hence the complainant claiming Rs.1800/-he paid in excess to opposite party with Rs.15,000/- the amount which spent by him to complete the work and compensation. 2. Notice to opposite party issued by registered post on 17-11-2006 but the same was returned as unclaimed since the opposite party failed to collect the notice. Thereafter there was no sitting in the Forum for long period due to the vacancy in the post of President and Members. After re-constituting the Forum again another notice was issued to opposite party by registered post. The same was also returned as unclaimed. Therefore it is clear that the opposite party is willfully evading the notice. Hence Opposite party was set exparte. 3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 & A2 marked. Heard the complainant But the complainant has not produced any document to show that he had spent Rs.15,000/- for finishing the work. Further his claim for Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages is also appears to be without any basis. Hence the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1800/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which on application by the complainant proceedings U/s 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be initiated. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Unclaimed registered letter A2. 18-8-05 complaint sent by complainant to D.S.P. Kasaragod. PW1.Dayanandan.T.P. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
