BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 284/2002 Filed on 06.07.2002 Dated : 15.12.2008 Complainant:
B. Raveendran, Puthuval Puthen Veedu, Chathanpadu, Pothencode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party:
Rajeevan(Robinson), System Engineering Works, Vikas Nagar, Sreekariyam P.O.
(By adv. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair) This O.P having been heard on 12.11.2008, the Forum on 15.12.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The complainant's case is that there was an agreement with the opposite party for fabrication of a bunk shop. Its length is 6 feet and width is 6 feet. The agreed amount is Rs. 16000/-. The opposite party received Rs. 5000/- as advance on the date of agreement i.e; on 25.05.2002. When the complainant went to take the bunk it was incomplete and the opposite party demanded another Rs. 3000/- to purchase mild sheets. The complainant gave the same. When the complainant went to take the bunk he found that there were no sheets fixed at the bottom. There was no sale counter and there was shortage of length and width. The complainant pointed out these defects to the opposite party. Then the opposite party reacted that this alone can be done and to take it if he wants. So the complainant filed this complaint for getting back Rs. 5000/- plus Rs. 3000/- paid by him and for compensation. The opposite party filed version and they stated that the opposite party agreed to manufacture the said bunk shop having 6 feet length and 6 feet width. The agreed amount of the said bunk shop is Rs. 16000/-. The opposite party received Rs. 5000/- from the complainant as advance and issued a receipt for the same. Except this Rs. 5000/- no amount was received from the complainant. The opposite party completed the work of the bunk in time as per the agreement and it was informed to the complainant. After getting information regarding the completion of bunk shop, the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded Rs. 3000/- as commission. This demand was denied by the opposite party. As the opposite party was not ready to pay Rs. 3000/- as commission, the complainant purposefully evaded from making balance payment and delivery of the said bunk shop. The opposite party stated that the complainant himself violated the agreement and there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. In this case the complainant was examined as PW1 and marked copy of agreement as Ext. P1. The opposite party cross examined the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1. The complainant cross examined him. Commission reports were marked as Exts. C1 and C2. Commissioners are examined as CW1 and CW2. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is any agreement between the complainant and the opposite party? Whether the bunk shop is manufactured as per the terms of the agreement? Whether there is deficiency in service or violation of the agreement? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant in this case was examined as PW1 and the agreement marked as Ext. P1. The opposite party also admitted the Ext. P1 agreement and also admitted the receipt of Rs. 5000/- as advance. But the opposite party denied the receipt of Rs. 3000/-. The complainant has no documentary evidence to show that he has further paid Rs. 3000/-. This Forum perused the Ext. P1 agreement. As per the agreement, the length and width of the proposed bunk shop is 6 feet and the agreed amount for the fabrication of the bunk shop is Rs. 16000/- and also we can find that the opposite party received Rs. 5000/- as advance. The complainant's case is that the opposite party violated the terms of the agreement. He alleges that there was no sheets fixed at the bottom of the bunk, no sale counter and there was shortage of length and width and he alleges that the material used is not mild steel. In this case this Forum appointed two commissions to ascertain the disputed matters. One is advocate commissioner and another is expert commissioner. Two reports were marked as Exts. C1 and C2. As per Exts. C1 and C2 commission reports the length of the bunk shop is 6 feet(180 cm) and width is 178 cm, i.e; 2 cm less for 6 feet. On going through these two commission reports, it is seen that the opposite party has completed the work of the bunk shop as per the agreement. The shortage of 2 cm width is not a disputable matter. This shortage will not affect the use of the said bunk shop. Points (iii) & (iv):- At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that sale counter വേണം എന്ന് Ext. P1-ല് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. അടിഭാഗത്ത് ഷീററ് ഉറപ്പിക്കണം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. എന്തുതരം ഷീററ് ആണ് ഉപയോഗിക്കേണ്ടത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. കട പൂര്ത്തിയായാല് ബാക്കി തുക കൊടുത്ത് കൊണ്ടു പോകാം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടായിരുന്നു.. The complainant has not paid the balance amount as per the agreement. From this deposition of the complainant we can find that the complainant himself violated the terms of the agreement. He is bound to take the bunk shop from the opposite party after paying the agreed amount. There is no specific condition to use any particular kind of material. At the time of cross examination the complainant also submitted that “പാളയം Jacob & Sons-ല് ആദ്യം അന്വേഷിച്ചു. അവര് അതിന് 40000/- രൂപ വില പഠഞ്ഞു. നല്ല രീതിയില് high carbon steel ഉപയോഗിച്ചാണ് അത് ചെയ്യുന്നത് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. അത്രയും quality എനിക്ക് വേണ്ടായിരുന്നു.” From his deposition we have understood that the intention of the complainant is that the quality of the material is not important. The intention of the complainant is that he has to get a bunk in least cost. The evidences adduced by the complainant and opposite party clearly show that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. As per the agreement the opposite party manufactured the bunk shop with his money also. The opposite party has completed the work of the bunk in time as per the agreement. We find that there is a slight difference of 2 cm in the width of the bunk shop, that is not a shortage or it will not affect the purpose of the bunk shop. From the recorded evidence we are inclined to conclude that there is no violation of the agreement. Therefore this Forum finds that the case of the complainant is baseless. Hence the complaint is dismissed. If at all the opposite party has any grievance, he can approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances if any, as his counter claim cannot be entertained by this Forum since he is not a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th December 2008.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 284/2002 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of agreement dated 23.05.2002.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : DW1 - Rajeev.S IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL V COURT EXHIBIT CW1 - Usha Nandini C1 - Commission Report C2 - 2 photos of bunk shop dated 18.07.2005.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
