By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is field under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.2,45,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency of service from the part of 2nd opposite party along with cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had water leaking and dampness accumulating over the ceiling of his residence creating dirty dark circles. While so, the opposite party No.1 visited the house and introduced the 2nd opposite party who is the dealer of BASF construction chemicals and leak proofing solutions. The 1st opposite party who being the agent of 2nd opposite party assured 5 years guarantee for the work. The complainant believing his works, contacted the 2nd opposite party. Then the 2nd opposite party visited house and suggest one Mr. Shameer from Cochin who is a concrete demolisher, chiseling contractor who charges per square feet and as per their instructions and as per direction of 2nd opposite party, this Shameer completed his chiseling work of the roof and charges a sum of Rs.35,000/- and further as per the instructions of the opposite party No.2 chemicals worth Rs.85,000/- were purchased from 2nd opposite party and was fetched by complainant from Calicut. Later 2nd opposite party's men applied the chemical with a duration of 15 days and stored water and after a few days, plastering was done. Later after rainy season of 2012, no leak was found by dampness was seen all over. In the year 2013, the leakage increased and the entire roof plastering got damaged and water started dripping inside the house. Material charges of Rs.85,000/- and labour charges of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.35,000/- and Labour Rs.5,000/-, replasting Rs.60,000/-, painting Rs.25,000/- and altogether Rs.2,35,000/- is spent by the complainant for this. The opposite parties cheated the complainant and later not responded to the complaints. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were sent to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 appeared before the Forum and filed version. Opposite party No.2's notice is served to opposite party No.2 on 23.07.2014. Another notice served to opposite party No.2 on 04.08.2014. Opposite party No.2 not appeared before the Forum and opposite party No.2 is set ex-parte. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that opposite party No.1 is admitting para 1 to 4 of the complaint. Opposite party No.1 admitted that he had introduced opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 had no financial gain and not liable to indemnify the service breach of 2nd opposite party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.1.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 but was not cross examined by the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no oral evidence for opposite party No.1. The complainant and opposite party No.1 did not produce any document to support their case. Except the averments in the complaint as well as proof affidavit, there is no single document to prove the case of the complainant. The complainant did not produce any evidence and document to prove that the complainant had spend Rs.2,35,000/- for the application of chemicals and stoppage of the leakage of his house. Opposite party No.1 never stated that he had seen the transaction with the complainant and opposite party No.2. Mere averment in the version of opposite party No.1 that he is admitting para 1 to 4 of the complaint is not sufficient. Opposite party No.1 has to admit each and every point specifically. More over, in the version of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 stated that the allegations in the complaint are against facts and are exaggerating, false, misleading and incorrect etc.. So the Forum found that the complainant's case cannot be accepted blindly. The Forum found that the complainant had transaction with opposite party No.2 who is doing the leakage stopping work. But the complainant failed to prove the payments made by him by documentary evidence or by evidence of any witnesses. Since the opposite party No.2 is ex-parte, the Forum is of the opinion that awarding Rs.50,000/- towards damages sustained to the complainant is reasonable, just and proper in this case. The complainant had no case that any amount is given to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 only introduced the opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Hence, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2 in dealing the matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and damages from the opposite party No.2. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards damages to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of May 2015.
Date of Filing:27.01.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. T. K. Jayakrishnan (Affidavit) Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
Nil.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
SD/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
