IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 6 December 2017
Complaint No. 202/2017
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli, President
2) Smt.Sunita Member
-***-
Complainant/s:
Kallappa Shankareppa Savadi,
Retd. Lecturer,
R/o.Plot No.1371, Opposite to Harsha Hotel,
Ramateerth Nagar, Belagavi.
(In person)
V/s.
Opponent/s:
- Raju P.Holkar,
Aarya Alluminium & Fabricators,
Plot No.700, II Stage, Channamma Nagar,
Belagavi.
- M/s.R.N.Dongre,
1959, Kadolkar Galli, Belagavi.
(O.P.1 & 2 are Exparte)
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)
ORDER
U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in completing ACP Work of complainant’s house.
2) Inspite of service of notice OP-1 & 2 remained absent, hence placed exparte.
3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has produced his affidavit and some documents.
4) We have heard the argument and perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.
:: R E A S O N S ::
7) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant states that, the complainant has entrusted own house ACP contract work to OP-1 and for that purpose he has paid Rs.22000/- as advance out of estimated cost of Rs.42000/-. The OP-2 has introduced OP-1. After receiving advance amount OP-1 failed to do his work. Even after making several requests by the complainant the OP-1 failed to do his work. Thereafter through a letter dt.28.06.2016 the OP-1 intimated that, due to his person problems he is unable to do his work and further intimated that, he will complete the work within 10 days otherwise, he will refund the amount paid by complainant. Thereafter the OP-1 issued a cheque no.02042433 in favour of complainant for Rs.22,000/- of Union Bank of India, RPD College Compound, Belagavi. The said cheque become dishonoured due to lack of amount in the said account. Inspite of several requests the OPs failed to refund amount of complainant as agreed. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.
8) On perusal of letter produced by complainant dt.28.06.2015, the OP-1 has clearly admitted that, he has not completed the complainant’s contract work due to his personal problems. In the said letter the OP-1 has also stated that, if he fail to do the work he will return Rs.22000/- to the complainant. On perusal of Return Memo Report dt.15.04.2017 it is stated that, the reason for return of Cheque No.04233 is “Funds Insufficient”.
9) Inspite of service of notice OP-1 & 2 remained absent, hence placed exparte. Hence the contents of complaint and documents produced by the complainant remained unchallenged. On perusal of complaint averments and documents the OP-1 was introduced by OP-2. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. Hence claim against OP-2 is dismissed.
10) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1. has been proved.
11) Accordingly, the following
:ORDER:
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP-1 is hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.22,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing complaint till realization.
Further, the OP-1 is hereby directed and liable to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
The complaint is dismissed against OP-2.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from today.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 6 December 2017)
Sd/- Sd/-
MSR
