Kerala

Idukki

4/2007

Mathew Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ravi s/o Bhaskkaran, - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
consumer case(CC) No. 4/2007

Mathew Thomas
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ravi s/o Bhaskkaran,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindu Soman 2. Laiju Ramakrishnan 3. Sheela Jacob

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party on 20.07.2006 for furnishing his rented building for the purpose of starting a watch shop. The opposite party is a skilled labourer in furnishing shops. It was agreed by the opposite party that the work will be completed within one month and a consideration of Rs.22,000/- was fixed by both parties. Also agreed that the payment was in instalment, as per the termination of work. All the materials and weapons for the furnishing, including a foreign made drilling machine were supplied by the complainant. The opposite party started the work in order to inauguarate the watch shop on 17.08.2006. Opposite party made assurance to the complainant that the work will be completed within 17.08.2006. Opposite party received Rs.2,000/- as advance and received another 18,000/- from the complainant on seveal instalments. Total an amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to the opposite party by the complainant. But the opposite party did not complete the work before 17.08.2006 and took heals from there with the tools provided to him. Thedrilling machine costs Rs.5,000/-.The complainant started the shop on the said date. On the day of inauguration the complainant telephoned to opposite party and asked him to complete the work. Opposite Party agreed and replied that he will complete the work on the very next day. But the opposite party did not do the same and the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party stating the facts on 23.09.2006. Opposite paty received the notice but nothing replied nor completed the work. Complainant started his shop without completing the furnishing job. The complainant as well the customers of his shop are suffering a lot because of this. Hence alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to pay compensation and also for ordering the opposite party to complete the work. 2. The opposite party unclaimed the notice and so called exparte. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant. 5. The POINT :- The only dispute is whether opposite party completed his work in time. Ext.P1 is the agreement executed between the opposite party and the complainant stating that the work will be completed within one month by opposite party and the remuneratiion is fixed as Rs.22,000/- must be paid by the complainant. If any person decent from the complainant, that person should compensate the loss caused to the other. Both parties were signed and two witnesses were also signed. It means that the complainant hired the service of opposite party for consideration. Ext.P2 is the Advocate notice issued to the opposite party by the complainant. Exts.P3 and P4 are the postal receipt and postal AD cards of the same respectively. But no reply was issued by opposite party or not completed the work by him. Also did not give back the tools provided to him. It means that there is wilful negligence and there is gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the work completed and also get back the tools supplied for the work by him to the opposite party. Rs.3,000/- may be sufficient for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant because of the non-completion of the work in time by the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition. In the result, the opposite party is directed to complete the furnishing work of the complainant's watch shop and give back the tools supplied to the opposite party by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of petition, within one month. Otherwise the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a total amount of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Opern Forum on this the 16th day of May, 2008




......................Bindu Soman
......................Laiju Ramakrishnan
......................Sheela Jacob