DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of June 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President I/C<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.108/2006<br /> Saidu Muhammed<br /> S/o.M.S. Abdulwahab Rawther<br /> Ameen Manzil<br /> Metro Nagar<br /> Pirayiri (PO) Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Ravi.M,<br /> S/o. Ayyappan,<br /> Tharuvakkode House,<br /> Kallekkad (P.O),<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Senior Member<br /> <br /> The Brief history of the complainant is as follows.<br /> <br /> The complainant residing at Ameen Manzil, Metro Nagar, Pirayiri, Palakkad complaints that he had entered into an oral agreement on 12.03.06 with the opposite party in order to construct two sit out amounting to a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only) .<br /> <br /> The complainant states that the opposite party evaded to carry out the construction work as per the agreement for the last 5 months even after <br /> - 2 -<br /> <br /> accepting an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) towards the cost of cement, sand and rubbles.<br /> <br /> The complainant states that he had visited the opposite party several times to contact him but it was failed. He also visited opposite party's work place at Kizhakkanchery kavu and discussed about the construction work. But the opposite party tried to evade from the complainant on each occasion. Ultimately on 10.07.2006 a registered letter was sent to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> It is also submitted in the complaint that the partial work executed by the opposite party did not have adequate quantity of cement. He has submitted that the aforesaid act has caused much mental agony to the complainant. The complainant being a Blood pressure patient prays before this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation towards the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> After admitting the compliant, notice was served to the opposite party for their appearance before the Forum. Opposite party appeared and filed the version.<br /> <br /> The opposite party in his version denies all allegations submitted in the complaint. It is contended that he had not accepted a sum of Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) for the purchase of construction materials such as cement, sand and rubble from the complainant. He denied that the complainant entered into an agreement for Rs.22,000/- with him for construction work of the sit out.<br /> -3 -<br /> <br /> The opposite party also denies the fact that complainant's allegation of commencement of the work even after receiving the registered letter dated 10.07.2006. It is stated in the version that the opposite party and the complainant know each other and more over the previous construction work was also executed by the opposite party . According to opposite party the complainant requested him to do the construction work. But the opposite party expressed that he could only execute the work in accordance with the present rate of materials. But the complainant was not amenable to give the present rate for the proposed construction. So the opposite party rejected to take up the construction work. But it was carried out by the complainant himself. <br /> <br /> The opposite party states that it is because of his denial for constructing the house at lowest rate has caused the enemity between them and hence the complaint was filed.<br /> <br /> The opposite party submits that the allegations raised by the complainant is with an intention to cause mental agony and the compliant is baseless. <br /> <br /> Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs. <br /> <br /> Complainant filed an application for appointment of an expert commission to inspect the defects alleged in the complaint. Application was allowed and the commissioner examined the site and filed a report. Opposite party filed objections to the commissioners report stating that the commissioner has no right to investigate about the person who has done the work.<br /> <br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> Both parties filed proof affidavits to support their respective contentions. Ext A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. Commissioners report was marked as Ext. C1.<br /> <br /> Heard both the parties<br /> <br /> We have perused the document and affidavit produced from both sides. The complainant had stated that he had entrusted the contract to the opposite party for the construction of the sit out. But the opposite party had denied the allegation and had submitted that the complainant had not entrusted any contract to him. There is no evidence produced from the part of the complainant so as to prove that the construction work was entrusted to opposite party. In the absence of such evidence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> The complainant had failed to substantiate the contention in the complaint. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of June 2007.<br /> <br /> President in charge (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 series – Copy of the notice send by complainant to opposite party <br /> (Postal receipt)<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party<br /> Nil<br /> Forums Exhibit<br /> <br /> Ext.C1 – Commissioner Report <br /> <br /> Forwarded/by Order,<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br />