FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 34 (1), 34 (2) (d), 35, 36 and 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant has taken service of roof treatment from the respondent’s concern with 8 years guarantee, that the complainant has paid the total amount of Rs.30,000/- as the consideration amount of above said service on 13.05.2019 and the complainant states that after 3 months of the respondent’s service the problem of the complainant started as the coating started peeled off, water leakages are still on heavy rain, that the complainant problem was not resolved and the complainant states that despite of enjoying the new service and which was received by the complainant by not receiving the service in good condition the complainant has suffered a tremendous mental agony which is not at all tenable under the law, that the act and conduct of the respondent concern, is clearly proving that the respondent concern have & mala fide intention to dupe the hard earned money of the complainant and being deprived of the proper and facilitated procurement he again and again intimated the respondent by way of the telephonic conversation and by way of electronic mail conversation in order to solve the said issue but there were no fruitful result.
Complainant filed the complaint praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for refund and to provide compensation to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- to pay the cost of litigation.
Defense Case:- The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and prayed to dismiss this case.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of complainant have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the complainant.
From the discussion hereinabove we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
The specific case of the complainant is that he had taken service of roof treatment with 8 years guarantee from the O.P for which he had pad Rs. 30000/ for consideration money on 13/5/2019. On completion of roof treatment the same was found not in good condition and thus being deprived of the proper and facilitated procurement the petitioner communicated the matter of his dissatisfaction through different processes which resulted in vain.
An endeavor has been made by the O.P to submit that on formal inspection it was found that the coated roof of the complainant was in good condition and the allegation of water leakage was false and the final payment of Rs. 30000/ was not paid; that apart the consideration price amounted greater than what is said in the complaint.
This commission has taken into consideration the letter dated 13/5/19 along with its one annexure dated 13/5/19 issued by Rakesh Burman (to be addresses as O.P hereinafter) which has been addressed to the present petitioner wherefrom it is gathered that the O.P has finished the roof treatment in question stating therein also the materials used there for and according to O.P, “which gave you complete waterproof and heat repellant.” And this letter also refers to a guarantee of 8 years. The annexure abundantly makes it clear that the O.P also received the total consideration money of Rs. 30000/.
In view of the letter referred to above the roof coating has been made complete but the whatsapp chatting speaks something otherwise. The conversation between the two parties gives us a true picture that on 11/3/2021 the matter was referred to the O.P to make a solution of the same in this line also goes between the two dated 7/5/21 and 10/5/2021. These two annexure with the heading roof coat Rakesh Burman( the present O.P) abundantly go to show that the roof coating job which was guaranteed for a period of 8 years failed.
On consideration of the above facts and circumstances there is no other alternative but to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 23 of 2022 be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P.
The petitioner do get refund of Rs. 30000/ and do get Rs. 10000/ for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/ as litigation cost within 45 days from date failing which the petitioner will take the recourse to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
