D.O.F. 01.03.2010 D.O.O. 23.11.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 23rd day of November, 2010. C.C.No.79/2010 Anil Kumar P. S/o. Gopalan, Anil Nivas, M.P. Ward, : Complainant P.O. Thayyil, Kannur District. (Rep. by Adv. T.P. Sabu) Ranjan K. S/o. Damodharan, Thachan House, Nerli Vayal : Opposite party Pappinissery P.O., Kannur O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 50,000 as compensation along with cost of the proceedings. The complainant’s case is that he has entrusted the opposite party for the concrete work of his newly constructed house as per the rate as fixed according to the terms and condition of agreement. The rates of different level as per agreement are for constructing lintel ` 22 per Sq. Ft. for constructing sunshade ` 22 per Sq. Ft., for constructing pillar ` 2000, for constructing steps ` 300 per step, for baring works ` 22 per running feet. Accordingly the opposite party has collected an amount of ` 26,000 on 06.12.2009. But he has not done any work in tune with the plan and specification given by the complainant and not cared to measure works done by him to settle the accounts and disputes between the opposite party and the complainant. The opposite parties works are highly defective and the amount charged by him is highly excessive and against the fixed rate published by the Concrete Workers Supervision Association. The steps constructed by the opposite party are having only 21/2 Ft. instead of 3 Ft. and the sunshade is also below the level and above all the opposite party committed much waste in purchasing materials for concrete work. The opposite party had unnecessarily constructed one beam without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and all these acts of the opposite party caused heavy damages both mental, physical and financial. The complainant suffered damages to the tune of ` 5000 and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant since all these was caused due to the deficient service of the opposite party. The opposite party had stopped the works without completing and without complying the terms in the agreement; no other person is ready to take the risk to rectify and complete the same. So due to the opposite party’s illegal act, the complainant had sustained heavy loss. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the complaint, the Forum had issued notice to the opposite party, eventhough intimation was given, the notice was returned as unclaimed. Hence the opposite party was called absent and set exparty. The main points to be decided in this case is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the party of opposite party. The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination, Ext. A1 to A4 and Ext.C1. The affidavit filed by the complainant is in tune with the pleadings and he had produced documents such as statement for the work done and the receipt for ` 26,000, dated 06.12.2009, copy of lawyer notice, returned notice, rate card issued by the State Committee of Concrete Worker’s Supervisor’s Association and the report of the Expert Commissioner. The Ext.A1 shows that the opposite party had already received ` 26,000 towards the work. As per Ext.A1 it is seen that he had received the amount towards the following work as per the following rate. Staircase, sunshade and baring as ` 22 per feet and pillar work at the rate of ` 2000 per pillar and steps at the rate of ` 300 per one step. The expert Commissioner filed his report. As per the report, the building is unplastered one and have the serious defects. According to the report, the pillar constructed in the verandah is not supporting correctly. The pillar is eccentric in relation to the beam and is a structural defect. The lintels were casted without taking care and hence the concrete of three lintels have been bulged, which cause extra cost for plastering work. The cantilever beam provided near verandah has extra long counter weight and that has caused additional financial burden to the owner. The casting of the sunshade is also done without care and hence its ending has bend on both sides bottom and edge by causing extra cost at the time of plastering work and some of the portions are irreparable. In some portions of the edge of sunshade cracks were developed. Sunshade edging has not provided sufficient height and repairing of it will also cause extra cost. The flight of the stair is only 75 cm which is insufficient and there is enough space for making it upto 85 cm. The Commissioner further reported that the cost of rectification of the above defects will be approximately ` 25,000. So from the report of the Commissioner it is clearly seen that the work done by the opposite party is having so many defects and all these was happened due to the negligence and careless work of the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has not turned before Forum and hence there is no contra evidence before us. Above all the non-appearance of opposite party itself is amount to unfair practice and hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant by giving ` 25,000 as cost of the rectification work. The complainant is also entitled to get ` 3000as compensation and ` 1500 as cost of the proceedings and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay ` 25,000(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost of the rectification work, ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation and ` 1500 (Rupees One thousand Five Hundred only) as cost the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Original agreement dated 06.12.2009. A2. Copy of lawyer notice dated 10.12.2009. A3. Returned article dated 22.12.2009. A4. Copy of rate card issued by State Committee, Concrete Workers Supervisors Association. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Exhibits for the Court C1. Inspection Report dated 06.09.2010. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. nil Witness examined for opposite party DW1. nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
