BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 187/2001 Filed on 23.04.2001

Dated : 30.07.2010

Complainant:

P.J. Kuttappan, residing at T.C 3/321(5), Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G. Gopakumar)

Opposite party:

Saji, S/o Dasan, T.C 3/326, Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. T.I. Unniraja)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.11.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 05.06.2010, the Forum on 30.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant is the owner of house No. T.C 3/321(5), Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram and residing permanently there from 1999. The opposite party is known to the complainant for the last so many years. After availing loan from the Government the complainant who was a government servant constructed a residential building for his own residence purpose. By an agreement between the complainant and the opposite party, plumbing work of the building was entrusted to opposite party on 13.04.1996 and paid an advance of Rs. 7,000/-. All the materials for the plumbing work were purchased by the opposite party himself and he did all the work and received an amount of more than Rs. 17,000/- for the materials and more than Rs. 5,000/- towards labour charge. Subsequently the complainant obtained water connection on 04.04.2000. On 05.04.2000 evening the complainant noticed that there was leakage of water from the concealed water pipe installed by the opposite party in the bathroom which spread all over the walls of the adjacent bed room. As requested by the complainant on 06.04.2000 the opposite party did some repairs twice. But the defect was not rectified by the opposite party. This causes much inconvenience and difficulty to the complainant and his family members. When the complainant approached the opposite party again to rectify the defect, he was reluctant to rectify the same. The complainant had spent a huge amount towards the plumbing work and other connected works done as estimated by the opposite party. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party to rectify the above defects. But the opposite party did not care to do anything to rectify the defects. The attitude of the opposite party causes much monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant. An unfair trade practice was adopted by the opposite party. There was complete deficiency of service in this matter. The complainant has incurred a loss of about Rs. 20,000/- towards the deficiency of service done by the opposite party.

In this case the opposite party filed objections to the complaint. In the objection the opposite party stated that there is no agreement entered into between the opposite party and the complainant. The opposite party has not undertaken plumbing work in the complainant’s house and no advance amount has been received by the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party is having no licence to do plumbing work and being unskilled labour and has no knowhow in any work. The allegations that he has purchased the materials for the plumbing work by receiving an amount of more tan Rs. 17,000/- and more than Rs. 5,000/- as labour charges are also false. He has never taken any contract of any work so far. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. The petition is filed with malafide intention to wreck vengeance upon the opposite party as he refused to stand as a witness in favour of the complainant in petition matter before the police.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite party has no evidence.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The allegation of the complainant is that due to the defective work of the opposite party there was leakage of water from the concealed water pipe installed by the opposite party in the bathroom which spread all over the walls of the adjacent bed room. But the defect was not rectified by the opposite party instead of the repeated requests and demands of the complainant. The complainant stated that he had spent more than Rs. 20,000/- for the work. The attitude of the opposite party causes much mental loss and mental agony to the complainant.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents as evidence which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 25.08.2000. The unclaimed notice has been produced here. Ext. P2 is the possession certificate issued by the Corporation in the name of the complainant. Ext. P3 is the cash bill issued by Saraswathy Enterprises for the purchase of sanitary wares, water supply fittings etc for an amount of Rs. 11,940.10 dated 15.04.1996. Ext. P4 is the bill of Rs. 1,457 + 628+176+321. Ext. P5 is also purchase bill of kitchen equipments for an amount of Rs. 11,558.25. From these documents we cannot find any evidence relating to this case against the opposite party. The complainant has not produced any document to show that he has paid any amount to the opposite party for the alleged works. Furthermore, he has not produced any work agreement between the complainant and the opposite party. And moreover the complainant has not turned up to prove what is the defective work the opposite party has done. In this case the complainant has filed a commission application, but he did not take any further steps. From the above mentioned discussions we find that the complainant has failed to establish his case. For lack of evidence we cannot allow this complaint. Hence this complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of July 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 187/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of notice dated 25.08.2000

P2 - Copy of certificate dated 04.01.2001

P3 - Original cash bill dated 15.04.1996

P4 - Copy of cash bill

P5 - Copy of purchase bill of kitchen equipments.

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb