KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.134/08 JUDGMENT DATED : 31/7/2008 PRESENT:- JUSTICE.SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Ravi, Kaniyamkudiyil (Kunnumpurath)House, Arivilamachal PO, Kanthippara Village, Idukki District. : APPELLANT Vs Roy S/o.John, Keezhotukunnel House, Arivilamchal PO Ottathi Kara, Kanthippara Village, Idukki District. : RESPONDENT JUDGMENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The appellants prefers this appeal from the order of the CDRF, Idukki in the file of CC.No.231/06 dated 12/5/2008. The appellant is a respondent in the above OP. The respondent is a complainant in the OP mentioned above. This complainant challenged the impugned order of the Forum below directed to repaint the front side walls of the complainant’s residential building within 2 months with quality plastic emelsion paint with due care. The opposite party must meet the expenses of the materials for the same. Otherwise the opposite party must pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the petition within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% p.a from the date of default. 2. The complainant and opposite party entered into an oral agreement in which the complainant hired the services of opposite party as a painter for painting his house for a consideration of Rs.11,000/- including the cost of the material. The opposite party received this amount and started the work on 4/4/06 and completed the same on May 2006. The complainant have a case that the opposite party used low quality paint instead of plastic emelsion paint and used no skill for perfection. After one month the paint was stired down from the walls. Paint was flowed down due to rainwater. The compromise talk was also done by the complainant but there was no effect. Hence alleging deficiency in service the complaint has been filed for a direction to repaint the complainant’s residence. 3. The written version filed by the opposite party and contended that the complaint is not maintainable as for the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not a consumer and it is not a consumer dispute. The opposite party was also contended that he was only a painting labourer of the complainant. The opposite party is not liable for any compensation from the opposite party. 4. The complainant adduced oral evidence as witnesses PW1 to PW3 and marked as Ext.P1 to P6. After considering the above oral and documentary testimonies of the complainant the Forum below passed the above order. For the side of the appellant/opposite party no oral and documentary evidence has adduced. 5. The counsel appear for the appellant submitted that there was no opportunity given by the Forum below to his appellant to adduced the evidence from his part. It is not true. The Forum below given ample opportunities to this appellant. All opportunities given for cross examination of PW1 to PW3 and exhibits other documents. But the opportunity has not utilized by the appellant in the Forum below. Hence the contention like that the appellant is not having any contractual obligation towards the respondent/opposite party is not legally sustainable. He offered from service on payment from his part. It is duty of the appellant to provide proper service to the complainant. Another contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the complaint is not maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act. It is also not acceptable. Again the counsel submitted that no commission has taken out by the complainant for assessing the deficiency in service in the Forum below is also is not necessary in the case of lake this minor of disputes involved. The Consumer Protection Act is a socially benefited legislature. All the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not legally sustainable. We are not seen any reason to interfere in the order of the Forum below. In the result this appeal is dismissed in limine. The points are answered accordingly. Both the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYA BHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
